State v. Heal

Utah Supreme Court

State v. Heal

15 P.2d 1068, 80 Utah 586, 1932 Utah LEXIS 46

CourtUtah Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 16, 1932

DocketNo. 5198.

StatusPublished

This text of 15 P.2d 1068 (State v. Heal) 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. Heal, 15 P.2d 1068, 80 Utah 586, 1932 Utah LEXIS 46 (Utah 1932).

Pincite

Opinions

As stated in the case of State v. Clayton (Utah)15 P.2d 1057, just decided, Heal and Clayton by information were jointly charged with the offense of embezzlement. They were tried separately. Both were convicted and appealed. Both cases were presented in separate records and were heard and submitted at the same time. On examination of the record in the Heal Case, we find no substantial difference between the two cases, though in minor details *Page 587 it was claimed there was some difference. Both defendants were tried on the same information, the same rulings made and the same charge given in both cases, and in the main the same assignments including the assignment as to sufficiency of the information and of the evidence to support the verdict.

So, for the reasons stated in the Clayton Case, the judgment in this case is likewise reversed, and the case remanded for a new trial.

EPHRAIM HANSON, J., concurs.

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

As stated in the case of State v. Clayton (Utah)15 P.2d 1057, just decided, Heal and Clayton by information were jointly charged with the offense of embezzlement. They were tried separately. Both were convicted and appealed. Both cases were presented in separate records and were heard and submitted at the same time. On examination of the record in the Heal Case, we find no substantial difference between the two cases, though in minor details *Page 587 it was claimed there was some difference. Both defendants were tried on the same information, the same rulings made and the same charge given in both cases, and in the main the same assignments including the assignment as to sufficiency of the information and of the evidence to support the verdict.

So, for the reasons stated in the Clayton Case, the judgment in this case is likewise reversed, and the case remanded for a new trial.

EPHRAIM HANSON, J., concurs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 P.2d 1068, 80 Utah 586, 1932 Utah LEXIS 46, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-heal-utah-1932.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack