State v. Strohm

Utah Supreme Court

State v. Strohm

456 P.2d 170, 23 Utah 2d 37, 1969 Utah LEXIS 487

CourtUtah Supreme Court

DecidedJune 30, 1969

DocketNo. 11166

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 456 P.2d 170 (State v. Strohm) 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. Strohm, 456 P.2d 170, 23 Utah 2d 37, 1969 Utah LEXIS 487 (Utah 1969).

Pincite

Opinions

HENRIOD, Justice:

Appeal from a burglary and larceny conviction. Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

After voir dire it appeared that there was a question about Miranda at a confes[38]*38sion session and particularly anent volun-tariness thereof. In front of the jury the trial court announced quite audibly, that the question of the confession, itself questionable, was a “question for the jury.” The propriety of this pronouncement is the question before this court.

Without question, this court has gone on record to the effect that voluntariness of a “confession” primarily is not a jury question, but one for the judge. Mr. Chief Justice McDonough, in State v. Ashdown, 5 Utah 2d 59, 296 P.2d 726 (1956), quoting Mr. Justice Wade in State v. Crank, 105 Utah 322, at page 373, 142 P.2d 178, at page 196, under Syllabi (9) and (10), 170 A.L.R. 542, sets forth the rule, beginning with the words, “We agree with the rule approved in those cases * * *.” etc., to which language the reader is referred, as well as to the authorities cited in the Ashdown case. These referrals seem to reflect the principle that is dispositive here, and we so hold.

CALLISTER and TUCKETT, JJ., concur. CROCKETT, C. J., concurs in the result.

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

HENRIOD, Justice:

Appeal from a burglary and larceny conviction. Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

After voir dire it appeared that there was a question about Miranda at a confes[38]*38sion session and particularly anent volun-tariness thereof. In front of the jury the trial court announced quite audibly, that the question of the confession, itself questionable, was a “question for the jury.” The propriety of this pronouncement is the question before this court.

Without question, this court has gone on record to the effect that voluntariness of a “confession” primarily is not a jury question, but one for the judge. Mr. Chief Justice McDonough, in State v. Ashdown, 5 Utah 2d 59, 296 P.2d 726 (1956), quoting Mr. Justice Wade in State v. Crank, 105 Utah 322, at page 373, 142 P.2d 178, at page 196, under Syllabi (9) and (10), 170 A.L.R. 542, sets forth the rule, beginning with the words, “We agree with the rule approved in those cases * * *.” etc., to which language the reader is referred, as well as to the authorities cited in the Ashdown case. These referrals seem to reflect the principle that is dispositive here, and we so hold.

CALLISTER and TUCKETT, JJ., concur. CROCKETT, C. J., concurs in the result.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

456 P.2d 170, 23 Utah 2d 37, 1969 Utah LEXIS 487, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-strohm-utah-1969.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack