State v. Iverson

Utah Supreme Court

State v. Iverson

350 P.2d 152, 10 Utah 2d 171, 1960 Utah LEXIS 153

CourtUtah Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 7, 1960

Docket9103

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 350 P.2d 152 (State v. Iverson) 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. Iverson, 350 P.2d 152, 10 Utah 2d 171, 1960 Utah LEXIS 153 (Utah 1960).

Pincite

Opinions

CALLISTER, Justice.

Defendant was charged under the automobile homicide law, Section 76-30-7.4, U.C.A. 1953, with causing the death of Hermania Padilla by driving an automobile while under the influence of intoxicating liquor and carelessly and recklessly causing her death on August 23, 1958, in Salt Lake County. The trial was to a jury and at the close of the state’s case the defendant made a motion to dismiss upon the ground that the state had failed to prove its case. The trial judge took this motion under advisement, and the trial proceeded.

After all the evidence had been presented by both sides defendant renewed the motion to dismiss upon the same ground. The trial judge reserved his ruling upon the motion and submitted the case to the jury.

The jury, after deliberation, returned a verdict of guilty. However, upon polling the jury, one of the jurors changed his mind and refused to concur with the guilty verdict. The trial judge declared the jury to be a “hung jury” and discharged them.

[173]*173Subsequently, the trial judge granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss. From that ruling the state has appealed, setting forth in its brief evidence from which it contends that the jury could reasonably have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It is our view that this contention is correct and that the trial court was right in its first determination to let the case go to the jury. However, in view of the disposition of this case, as indicated below, we see no useful purpose in detailing the evidence herein.

The law involved is ably discussed in the opinion of Justice Wolfe in State v. Thatcher, 108 Utah 63, 157 P.2d 258. The controlling principle is that upon such a motion the evidence is to be viewed most favorably to the state, and if when so viewed, the jury acting fairly and reasonably could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the judge is required to submit the case to the jury for determination of the guilt or innocence of defendant.

The judgment is reversed but the defendant having been in jeopardy there can be no further proceedings herein. .State v. Thatcher, supra; as to when jeopardy attaches, see State v. Whitman, 93 Utah 557, 74 P.2d 696.

CROCKETT, C. J., and WADE and McDonough, jj., concur.

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

CALLISTER, Justice.

Defendant was charged under the automobile homicide law, Section 76-30-7.4, U.C.A. 1953, with causing the death of Hermania Padilla by driving an automobile while under the influence of intoxicating liquor and carelessly and recklessly causing her death on August 23, 1958, in Salt Lake County. The trial was to a jury and at the close of the state’s case the defendant made a motion to dismiss upon the ground that the state had failed to prove its case. The trial judge took this motion under advisement, and the trial proceeded.

After all the evidence had been presented by both sides defendant renewed the motion to dismiss upon the same ground. The trial judge reserved his ruling upon the motion and submitted the case to the jury.

The jury, after deliberation, returned a verdict of guilty. However, upon polling the jury, one of the jurors changed his mind and refused to concur with the guilty verdict. The trial judge declared the jury to be a “hung jury” and discharged them.

[173]*173Subsequently, the trial judge granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss. From that ruling the state has appealed, setting forth in its brief evidence from which it contends that the jury could reasonably have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It is our view that this contention is correct and that the trial court was right in its first determination to let the case go to the jury. However, in view of the disposition of this case, as indicated below, we see no useful purpose in detailing the evidence herein.

The law involved is ably discussed in the opinion of Justice Wolfe in State v. Thatcher, 108 Utah 63, 157 P.2d 258. The controlling principle is that upon such a motion the evidence is to be viewed most favorably to the state, and if when so viewed, the jury acting fairly and reasonably could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the judge is required to submit the case to the jury for determination of the guilt or innocence of defendant.

The judgment is reversed but the defendant having been in jeopardy there can be no further proceedings herein. .State v. Thatcher, supra; as to when jeopardy attaches, see State v. Whitman, 93 Utah 557, 74 P.2d 696.

CROCKETT, C. J., and WADE and McDonough, jj., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

350 P.2d 152, 10 Utah 2d 171, 1960 Utah LEXIS 153, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-iverson-utah-1960.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack