State v. Simmons

Utah Supreme Court

State v. Simmons

501 P.2d 1206, 28 Utah 2d 301, 1972 Utah LEXIS 854

CourtUtah Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 16, 1972

Docket12755

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 501 P.2d 1206 (State v. Simmons) 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. Simmons, 501 P.2d 1206, 28 Utah 2d 301, 1972 Utah LEXIS 854 (Utah 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

*302 HENRIOD, Justice.

Appeal from a grand larceny jury trial conviction. Affirmed.

Simmons says the court erred 1) in requiring him to answer questions about a previous felony conviction not involving dishonesty or false statement, and 2) in allowing the prosecutor to question him about another felony conviction where there was no evidence thereof,

As to 1) : Where an accused testifies he may be cross-examined as any other witness (Title 77-44 — 5, Utah Code Annotated 1953), and any other witness under 78-24-9, U.C.A.1953, “must answer as to the fact of his previous conviction of felony.” State v. Harless, 23 Utah 2d 128, 459 P.2d 210 (1969), discusses both statutes, does not confine the rule to but one felony, as was suggested by this writer in State v. Kazda, 14 Utah 2d 266, 382 P.2d 407 (1963), —so Harless is dispositive here along with the Kazda case.

As to 2): The so-called “felony” inquired into turned out to be a misdemeanor, on cross-examination. This fact was pointed out and corrected by the court, after having been volunteered by the defendant. We see no prejudicial error under such circumstances.

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

*302 HENRIOD, Justice.

Appeal from a grand larceny jury trial conviction. Affirmed.

Simmons says the court erred 1) in requiring him to answer questions about a previous felony conviction not involving dishonesty or false statement, and 2) in allowing the prosecutor to question him about another felony conviction where there was no evidence thereof,

As to 1) : Where an accused testifies he may be cross-examined as any other witness (Title 77-44 — 5, Utah Code Annotated 1953), and any other witness under 78-24-9, U.C.A.1953, “must answer as to the fact of his previous conviction of felony.” State v. Harless, 23 Utah 2d 128, 459 P.2d 210 (1969), discusses both statutes, does not confine the rule to but one felony, as was suggested by this writer in State v. Kazda, 14 Utah 2d 266, 382 P.2d 407 (1963), —so Harless is dispositive here along with the Kazda case.

As to 2): The so-called “felony” inquired into turned out to be a misdemeanor, on cross-examination. This fact was pointed out and corrected by the court, after having been volunteered by the defendant. We see no prejudicial error under such circumstances.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

501 P.2d 1206, 28 Utah 2d 301, 1972 Utah LEXIS 854, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-simmons-utah-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack