State v. Brown

Utah Supreme Court

State v. Brown

425 P.2d 405, 19 Utah 2d 5, 1967 Utah LEXIS 556

CourtUtah Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 22, 1967

DocketNo. 10759

StatusPublished

This text of 425 P.2d 405 (State v. Brown) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Utah Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Brown, 425 P.2d 405, 19 Utah 2d 5, 1967 Utah LEXIS 556 (Utah 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

HENRIOD, Justice.

Appeal from a judgment based on a jury verdict, convicting Brown of burglary. Affirmed. . .

Brown was caught red handed by the victim, one Call. Brown was sitting in the former’s car, and upon being accosted, ran a few yards to his own car, where-he not only gave himself up, but the loot he took from the victim.

He appeals, saying the trial court erred 'in 1) admitting the victim’s testimony as to identification of stolen items, as going to the ultimate fact in issue, 2) refusing to give an instruction as to recently stolen property, and 3) in denying appellant probation.

A casual reading of the record suffices to negate each point on appeal, each of which seems to be clearly without merit, unless it be point 1), and with respect thereto, any error was minor, not prejudicial and certainly cured by the record, and really unsupported.¹

CROCKETT, C. J., and CALLISTER, TUCKETT, and ELLETT, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

HENRIOD, Justice.

Appeal from a judgment based on a jury verdict, convicting Brown of burglary. Affirmed. . .

Brown was caught red handed by the victim, one Call. Brown was sitting in the former’s car, and upon being accosted, ran a few yards to his own car, where-he not only gave himself up, but the loot he took from the victim.

He appeals, saying the trial court erred 'in 1) admitting the victim’s testimony as to identification of stolen items, as going to the ultimate fact in issue, 2) refusing to give an instruction as to recently stolen property, and 3) in denying appellant probation.

A casual reading of the record suffices to negate each point on appeal, each of which seems to be clearly without merit, unless it be point 1), and with respect thereto, any error was minor, not prejudicial and certainly cured by the record, and really unsupported.¹

CROCKETT, C. J., and CALLISTER, TUCKETT, and ELLETT, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

425 P.2d 405, 19 Utah 2d 5, 1967 Utah LEXIS 556, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-brown-utah-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack