State v. Kelly

Idaho Supreme Court

State v. Kelly

521 P.2d 1150, 95 Idaho 851, 1974 Ida. LEXIS 523

CourtIdaho Supreme Court

DecidedMay 2, 1974

DocketNo. 11465

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 521 P.2d 1150 (State v. Kelly) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Idaho 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. Kelly, 521 P.2d 1150, 95 Idaho 851, 1974 Ida. LEXIS 523 (Idaho 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction of failure to display lights on a motor vehicle after dark. Defendant-appellant Kelly pleaded not guilty to the charge and was tried before a jury in the magistrate’s division of the district court. The jury found him guilty as charged, the conviction was appealed to and affirmed by the district court.

The appellant contends that the verdict of the jury is not supported by the evidence. However, a review of the record, including the augmentation thereto, indicates that there is substantial competent evidence to support the verdict of the jury and it will not be disturbed upon appeal. Cahill v. Logue, 93 Idaho 533, 466 P.2d 573 (1970).

Appellant also contends that the magistrate erred in his instructions to the jury. Although defendant-appellant acted as his own counsel at trial, standard rules of law must be applied. Bloch v. Bentfield, 1 Ariz.App. 412, 403 P.2d 559 (1965). The magistrate instructed the jury on the basic elements of the charge. If the appellant desired further instructions on a particular point, it was his duty to request them. State v. Beason, 95 Idaho 267, 506 P.2d 1340 (1973), and in the absence of such request error cannot be assigned. State v. Linn, 93 Idaho 430, 462 P.2d 729 (1969).

We have carefully reviewed appellant’s other assignments of error, including those pertaining to alleged misconduct by the judge, and the prosecutor, and find such to be without merit.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction of failure to display lights on a motor vehicle after dark. Defendant-appellant Kelly pleaded not guilty to the charge and was tried before a jury in the magistrate’s division of the district court. The jury found him guilty as charged, the conviction was appealed to and affirmed by the district court.

The appellant contends that the verdict of the jury is not supported by the evidence. However, a review of the record, including the augmentation thereto, indicates that there is substantial competent evidence to support the verdict of the jury and it will not be disturbed upon appeal. Cahill v. Logue, 93 Idaho 533, 466 P.2d 573 (1970).

Appellant also contends that the magistrate erred in his instructions to the jury. Although defendant-appellant acted as his own counsel at trial, standard rules of law must be applied. Bloch v. Bentfield, 1 Ariz.App. 412, 403 P.2d 559 (1965). The magistrate instructed the jury on the basic elements of the charge. If the appellant desired further instructions on a particular point, it was his duty to request them. State v. Beason, 95 Idaho 267, 506 P.2d 1340 (1973), and in the absence of such request error cannot be assigned. State v. Linn, 93 Idaho 430, 462 P.2d 729 (1969).

We have carefully reviewed appellant’s other assignments of error, including those pertaining to alleged misconduct by the judge, and the prosecutor, and find such to be without merit.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

521 P.2d 1150, 95 Idaho 851, 1974 Ida. LEXIS 523, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-kelly-idaho-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack