State v. Martinez

Utah Supreme Court

State v. Martinez

442 P.2d 943, 21 Utah 2d 187, 1968 Utah LEXIS 618

CourtUtah Supreme Court

DecidedJune 21, 1968

Docket11058

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 442 P.2d 943 (State v. Martinez) 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. Martinez, 442 P.2d 943, 21 Utah 2d 187, 1968 Utah LEXIS 618 (Utah 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

HENRIOD, Justice:

Appeal from a judgment on a guilty verdict in a burglary and larceny case. Affirmed.-

A local jewelry store was burglarized. Defendant and another borrowed a suitcase from a friend, chartered a private plane to Oakland, where defendant who displayed jewelry taken, (later identified) attempted to give part of it to the pilot to fly the former to Mexico. No question was raised as to whether anyone’s possession of the loot was remote.

Defendant, on appeal, urges that 1) no one asked him to explain his possession of recently stolen property, 1 but we know of no case requiring anyone to urge defendant to do anything; 2 2) that the statute, 76-38-1 (see note 1) is unconstitutional, which this court has stated is constitutional ; 3 3) that the court erred in failing to give a requested instruction having to do with alternative facts and conclusions and theories, which point we consider without merit, since such instruction was cumulative and more than amply covered in stock and other instructions given, and 4) that the court erred in not requiring disclosure of the prosecution’s evidence, which was an all-inclusive and unreasonable disclosure demand fraught with dangerous adversary procedural implications if the request had been granted. 4

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

1

.Under Title 76-38-1, Utah Code Annotated 1953, it is provided that “Possession of property recently stolen, when the person in possession fails to make a satisfactory explanation, shall he deemed prima facie evidence of guilt.” (Emphasis ours).

2

. See State v. Kirkman, 20 Utah 2d 44, 432 P.2d 638 (1967).

3

. State v. Little, 5 Utah 2d 42, 296 P.2d 289 (1956).

4

. See State v. Tune, 13 N.J. 203, 98 A.2d 881 (1953) and United States v. Garsson, 291F. 646 (D.C.1923).

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

HENRIOD, Justice:

Appeal from a judgment on a guilty verdict in a burglary and larceny case. Affirmed.-

A local jewelry store was burglarized. Defendant and another borrowed a suitcase from a friend, chartered a private plane to Oakland, where defendant who displayed jewelry taken, (later identified) attempted to give part of it to the pilot to fly the former to Mexico. No question was raised as to whether anyone’s possession of the loot was remote.

Defendant, on appeal, urges that 1) no one asked him to explain his possession of recently stolen property, 1 but we know of no case requiring anyone to urge defendant to do anything; 2 2) that the statute, 76-38-1 (see note 1) is unconstitutional, which this court has stated is constitutional ; 3 3) that the court erred in failing to give a requested instruction having to do with alternative facts and conclusions and theories, which point we consider without merit, since such instruction was cumulative and more than amply covered in stock and other instructions given, and 4) that the court erred in not requiring disclosure of the prosecution’s evidence, which was an all-inclusive and unreasonable disclosure demand fraught with dangerous adversary procedural implications if the request had been granted. 4

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

1

.Under Title 76-38-1, Utah Code Annotated 1953, it is provided that “Possession of property recently stolen, when the person in possession fails to make a satisfactory explanation, shall he deemed prima facie evidence of guilt.” (Emphasis ours).

2

. See State v. Kirkman, 20 Utah 2d 44, 432 P.2d 638 (1967).

3

. State v. Little, 5 Utah 2d 42, 296 P.2d 289 (1956).

4

. See State v. Tune, 13 N.J. 203, 98 A.2d 881 (1953) and United States v. Garsson, 291F. 646 (D.C.1923).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

442 P.2d 943, 21 Utah 2d 187, 1968 Utah LEXIS 618, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-martinez-utah-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack