State v. Cannon

Utah Supreme Court

State v. Cannon

404 P.2d 971, 17 Utah 2d 105, 1965 Utah LEXIS 459

CourtUtah Supreme Court

DecidedAugust 20, 1965

DocketNo. 10187

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 404 P.2d 971 (State v. Cannon) 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. Cannon, 404 P.2d 971, 17 Utah 2d 105, 1965 Utah LEXIS 459 (Utah 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

HENRIOD, Chief Justice:

Appeal from an auto homicide conviction. Affirmed.

In October, 1963, defendant drove eight miles up a local canyon to a cafe, in which he was part owner, where he visited for three or four hours, and after eating, started down the canyon'after dark. On the way he consumed a half pint of whiskey within about IS -minutes. At an intersection at the bottom of the canyon-he turned south, traveled'on a main thoroughfare, and after weaving back and forth, attempted to pass a truck, crossed a yellow-line traffic control and crashed head-on with a car carrying three young athletes returning from a basketball game, killing two of them.

He was taken into custody and to the hospital where within two hours, a blood test was taken that indicated definitely that he was under the influence of intoxicating liquor. No inaccuracy in the test was shown.

Defendant introduced evidence that a year before he had an attack of Meniere’s disease, which has the effect of disabling [106]*106dne's'legs’and'power of locomotion, not the mind, — the implication being that he may have suffered an attack in the present case. The trial court struck such evidence as being remote. We think the court was right in such exclusion, since besides being remote, there was no evidence of such .attack here.'

Defendant urges further that it was error to introduce evidence of the blood test, since it was taken at a remote time. We cannot say that if such test is taken IS minutes after an accident or 50 or ISO minutes thereafter, the evidence is inadmissible. This is a matter for expert medical testimony, and for the jury, and there is nothing here along that line substantiating defendant’s claim of remoteness.

McDonough, crockett, wade and CALLISTER, JJ., concur.

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

HENRIOD, Chief Justice:

Appeal from an auto homicide conviction. Affirmed.

In October, 1963, defendant drove eight miles up a local canyon to a cafe, in which he was part owner, where he visited for three or four hours, and after eating, started down the canyon'after dark. On the way he consumed a half pint of whiskey within about IS -minutes. At an intersection at the bottom of the canyon-he turned south, traveled'on a main thoroughfare, and after weaving back and forth, attempted to pass a truck, crossed a yellow-line traffic control and crashed head-on with a car carrying three young athletes returning from a basketball game, killing two of them.

He was taken into custody and to the hospital where within two hours, a blood test was taken that indicated definitely that he was under the influence of intoxicating liquor. No inaccuracy in the test was shown.

Defendant introduced evidence that a year before he had an attack of Meniere’s disease, which has the effect of disabling [106]*106dne's'legs’and'power of locomotion, not the mind, — the implication being that he may have suffered an attack in the present case. The trial court struck such evidence as being remote. We think the court was right in such exclusion, since besides being remote, there was no evidence of such .attack here.'

Defendant urges further that it was error to introduce evidence of the blood test, since it was taken at a remote time. We cannot say that if such test is taken IS minutes after an accident or 50 or ISO minutes thereafter, the evidence is inadmissible. This is a matter for expert medical testimony, and for the jury, and there is nothing here along that line substantiating defendant’s claim of remoteness.

McDonough, crockett, wade and CALLISTER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

404 P.2d 971, 17 Utah 2d 105, 1965 Utah LEXIS 459, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-cannon-utah-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack