State v. May

Utah Supreme Court

State v. May

513 P.2d 1375, 30 Utah 2d 99, 1973 Utah LEXIS 654

CourtUtah Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 12, 1973

DocketNo. 13062

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 513 P.2d 1375 (State v. May) 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. May, 513 P.2d 1375, 30 Utah 2d 99, 1973 Utah LEXIS 654 (Utah 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

HENRIOD, Justice:

Appeal from a first-degree murder conviction at a jury trial. Affirmed.

Defendant and one Weddle robbed a service station attendant after defendant had hit him over the head about three times with a ratchet wrench. They absconded in the attendant’s car in which there was a .22 caliber pistol, and which ran out of gas on the highway. A patrolman who stopped to investigate was shot to death by either Weddle or defendant or both, Weddle firing five shots from a .38 caliber pistol into him and a .22 caliber shot having gone through the patrolman’s head. Defendant admitted holding the .22 caliber gun which was fired at the time by defendant, who said nonetheless that he did not shoot or intend to shoot the victim. [100]*100Defendant, among other things, says the evidence was insufficient to show premeditation, wilfulness, aiding or abetting or an act greatly dangerous to others.

These points on appeal so startle this author as to render him almost breathless in announcing that we disagree with defendant’s counsel, but we do, including the contention that defendant constitutionally was denied a fair trial.

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

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

HENRIOD, Justice:

Appeal from a first-degree murder conviction at a jury trial. Affirmed.

Defendant and one Weddle robbed a service station attendant after defendant had hit him over the head about three times with a ratchet wrench. They absconded in the attendant’s car in which there was a .22 caliber pistol, and which ran out of gas on the highway. A patrolman who stopped to investigate was shot to death by either Weddle or defendant or both, Weddle firing five shots from a .38 caliber pistol into him and a .22 caliber shot having gone through the patrolman’s head. Defendant admitted holding the .22 caliber gun which was fired at the time by defendant, who said nonetheless that he did not shoot or intend to shoot the victim. [100]*100Defendant, among other things, says the evidence was insufficient to show premeditation, wilfulness, aiding or abetting or an act greatly dangerous to others.

These points on appeal so startle this author as to render him almost breathless in announcing that we disagree with defendant’s counsel, but we do, including the contention that defendant constitutionally was denied a fair trial.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

513 P.2d 1375, 30 Utah 2d 99, 1973 Utah LEXIS 654, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-may-utah-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack