State v. Robison

Utah Supreme Court

State v. Robison

498 P.2d 658, 28 Utah 2d 90, 1972 Utah LEXIS 804

CourtUtah Supreme Court

DecidedJune 26, 1972

DocketNo. 12711

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 498 P.2d 658 (State v. Robison) 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. Robison, 498 P.2d 658, 28 Utah 2d 90, 1972 Utah LEXIS 804 (Utah 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

HENRIOD, Justice:

Appeal from a second-degree murder ■conviction by a jury verdict after deliberating on a' first-degree murder charge. Affirmed.

Defendant says: 1) That the court erred in its instruction as to possibility of an accidental as opposed to an unintentional homicide, and 2) with respect to the factor of flight. The record reveals an all-inclusive instruction on accidental death. Prejudiciality in this case cannot be supported by pointing to another instruction, to the effect that there could be no conviction if the jury found that the shooting was “not intentional,” instead of “accidental.” As to Point 2, the same kind of treatment maintains since urging there was error because defendant should have had an instruction on “scared” as' opposed to “flight” with its inference of conscious guilt, has a ring of dissonance. This, considering the facts that after shooting his victim he returned to the scene of his crime, neither to do penance nor to administer aid to his still dying victim, but to recapture the highly evidentiary spent cartridge, and to leave moreso dying his erstwhile friend, while twice he fled.

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

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

HENRIOD, Justice:

Appeal from a second-degree murder ■conviction by a jury verdict after deliberating on a' first-degree murder charge. Affirmed.

Defendant says: 1) That the court erred in its instruction as to possibility of an accidental as opposed to an unintentional homicide, and 2) with respect to the factor of flight. The record reveals an all-inclusive instruction on accidental death. Prejudiciality in this case cannot be supported by pointing to another instruction, to the effect that there could be no conviction if the jury found that the shooting was “not intentional,” instead of “accidental.” As to Point 2, the same kind of treatment maintains since urging there was error because defendant should have had an instruction on “scared” as' opposed to “flight” with its inference of conscious guilt, has a ring of dissonance. This, considering the facts that after shooting his victim he returned to the scene of his crime, neither to do penance nor to administer aid to his still dying victim, but to recapture the highly evidentiary spent cartridge, and to leave moreso dying his erstwhile friend, while twice he fled.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

498 P.2d 658, 28 Utah 2d 90, 1972 Utah LEXIS 804, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-robison-utah-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack