State v. Cook

Utah Supreme Court

State v. Cook

439 P.2d 852, 21 Utah 2d 36, 1968 Utah LEXIS 579

CourtUtah Supreme Court

DecidedApril 15, 1968

Docket11061

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 439 P.2d 852 (State v. Cook) 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. Cook, 439 P.2d 852, 21 Utah 2d 36, 1968 Utah LEXIS 579 (Utah 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

HENRIOD, Justice.

Appeal from an automobile homicide 1 conviction in a case tried to a jury. Affirmed.

This is a case where defendant drove into the opposite lane of traffic in his car which was loaded with empty beer and whiskey bottles. He collided head-on with a car driven in a lawful manner by decedent’s husband in his outside lane. The defendant recited the facts to peace officers after being properly advised of his constitutional rights under any formula espoused by Miranda 2 or Escobedo 3 or anything else, *37 ■ — as the record clearly reflects. We think it quite unnecessary to recite the circumstances.

Defendant says: 1) That his confession was elicited in violation of the cases cited above, with which urgence completely we disagree; 2) that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the verdict, with which urgence we disagree even more emphatically; and 3) that a state witness talked with a juror, which contention was refuted successfully by affidavit and otherwise. Such contention has no merit.

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

1

. Utah Code Annotated, 76-30-7.4 (1967 Supp.).

2

. 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).

3

.378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed. 2d 977 (1964).

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

HENRIOD, Justice.

Appeal from an automobile homicide 1 conviction in a case tried to a jury. Affirmed.

This is a case where defendant drove into the opposite lane of traffic in his car which was loaded with empty beer and whiskey bottles. He collided head-on with a car driven in a lawful manner by decedent’s husband in his outside lane. The defendant recited the facts to peace officers after being properly advised of his constitutional rights under any formula espoused by Miranda 2 or Escobedo 3 or anything else, *37 ■ — as the record clearly reflects. We think it quite unnecessary to recite the circumstances.

Defendant says: 1) That his confession was elicited in violation of the cases cited above, with which urgence completely we disagree; 2) that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the verdict, with which urgence we disagree even more emphatically; and 3) that a state witness talked with a juror, which contention was refuted successfully by affidavit and otherwise. Such contention has no merit.

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

1

. Utah Code Annotated, 76-30-7.4 (1967 Supp.).

2

. 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).

3

.378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed. 2d 977 (1964).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

439 P.2d 852, 21 Utah 2d 36, 1968 Utah LEXIS 579, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-cook-utah-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack