OCR Text |
Show PAGE THE FOUR New Actions We - SchaPeco, snd Arlene contract K K. vs Inc Johnston! f543.)8 Riqtrup, atty M. contract 492 02- - K. Riqtrup, atty Murray Laundry, Inc Nicholeen Castletoni J71.l0f account, R. W. Perkins, atty 49203- 49204- ve J oepn 49205- M. M. - Interstate Collections vs open 49213- Recovery vs. Alan open account! atty - Collections Recovery vs Smith! 36.8S services! atty - Collections Recovery vs. Kenneth and Mrs. Summers! S41.50! services! M. G Hansen, atty - Metropolitan Finance Co. ve Harold K. Sharp! 1147.76! promissory note D. Sawaya, atty 49214- - Collections Recovery 116000! Dale and Mrs. Bone! vices! M. G Hansen, - Collections Recovery vs Gregory Allen! 1143.81! contract! 49215- vs ser- atty If the information under which a defendant is to be tried is sufficiently clear as to what the crime is, then the prosecuting attorney need not furnish any bill of particulars at all. However, in this case the court ordered the district attorney to furnish a bill of particulars ae to the names of officers who had taken statements from the defendant. The district attorney at the time he furnished the bill of particulars did not know about the hospital statements, Where the court orders the prosecuting uitoriiry in a bill of particulars to give matters not nquired by tin: uinluk, llio lourl may excuse the failure to furnish such material by permitting the t videure to be introduced, as was done in this case, besides, if riuyot.e kut about the statement, it surely was the defendant himself. - Collections G M atty Hansen, In The Supreme Court Of The State Of Utah The State of Utah, Plaintiff and Respondent, No. 12148 FILED v. October 20, 1970 At the trial of the matter, the iii.lt ndaut did nut object to the testimony the basis that hr- was surprised, undo thirdly he knew as much about it as the officer who heard it knew, lnuti .a, he objected upon the ground that there had been no showing oi i waiver of his right to remain on Russell Leonard Moraine, Defendant and Appellant. 8, It is apparent from a casual reading of ihc section thal all that is required in a bill of particulars is to give information uf the particulars of the crime charged so as to enable a defendant tu prepare his defense thereto, (State v. Jameson, 103 Utah 129, 134 P. 2d 173.) Recovery vs Scott Harper! S72.00! contract! atty (1), U.C.A. 1953, reads: -9 77-21-- 2l200! Hansen, 49212- - Interstate Collections vs. Hansen, G 77-21- When an information or indictment chargee an olfente in accordance with the provisions of section but fails to inform the defendant of the particulars of the offense, sufficiently to enable him to prepare his defense, or to give him such information as he is entitled to under the Constitution of this state, the court may, of its own motion, and shall at the request of the defendant, order the prosecuting attorney to furnish a bill of particulars containing such information as may be necessary for these purposes; or the prosecuting attorney may of his own motion furnish mu h bill of particulars. atty Hansen, David and Mrs M. G Hansen, 49206- M. G. C Cunningham Robert J. and Gloria Kendall! S199.2B! promissory note J. F. Herrick, atty 49207- Section - Collections 49211- - Collectins services! William Oeloy Porterj 135.50 sccount. J F. Herrick, atty will be presented to prove the charge againat him. Recovery vs Merlin and Mra. Fresh! S72.00 services 49210- - Intnretate Collections vs Betty J Cleave) 1515. 00 J. F. Herrick, atty atty Hansen, G 49209- - Collections Recovery vs Jerry and Mrs. Asmus! I11900 services! M G Hansen, atty - Schafeco, Inc vs Muriel Smith and Lynette Knight! I1092l 49201- The defendant complains because he was not told in the bill of partic-th- at he had made statements to the guard in the hospital. The record howa that the prosecuting attorney did not know about the voluntary etatement made in the hospital until the day oi trial. Besides, the law does not require the district attorney in a bill of particulars to tell the defendant what evidence - Collections Recovery vs. Robert Adamson! 8700 services! 49208- James L. are unable to see where any constitutional right to remain silent was violated. Murray City Court 49200- FRIDAY, OCTOBER 23, 1970 DAILY RECORD I.. M. Cummings, Clerk c - silent. ELLETT, Justice: No. 12148 This is an appeal from a conviction of the crime of robbery. The evidence was not in dispute, and the facts are as follows: The defendant further contends that the district attorney committed reversible error in a statement made during closing argument. No objection was made to the statement at the time it was made, but after the argument of couneel was completed, the defendant in chambers asked that either the district attorney enter into a stipulation or the court permit the record to how that during the closing arguments the prosecuting attorney had made the comment that "after being advised of the Miranda warnings, Mr. Moraine made no denial and no response, " The court had no recollection of euch a statement. being. made, but the prosecuting attorney laid he thought that he made that statement. Two men, wearing stocking masks, entered a Seven-Eleve- n Store just before closing time, to wit, about 10:55 p. m. , on December 16, 1969. They each held a drawn pistol. That held by one of them had a shiny barrel. The clerk at the direction of the man holding the pistol with the shiny barrel put paper money in a paper bag. In addition, that robber took some coins wrapped in bank wrappers and put them in the paper bag also. As the robbers left the building, a shot was heard. A prospective customer riding in a Jeep drove into the store parking area and saw the robbers and followed them until they ran behind a building a very short distance away. He noticed that one seemed to be unable to run. He returned to the Seven-ElevStore, and officers appeared at about the same time. Under the direction of the Jeep driver the officers quickly located the defendant and another person. The defendant was lying beside a wooden fence in a pile of leaves, with a shiny-barrpistol about one foot from his hand. The companion was on the other side of the fence with a pistol in one hand and the stolen hunkering in the other. money The defendant now claims that thia was a comment on hie failure to testify. We do not regard it as being a comment on his failure to take the witness stand. So far as appears, it was simply a statement of what transpired en at the time of arrest. Such statements might under some circumstances be error, but in this case even if it were error, it is difficult to Bee how it would be prejudicial to the defendant because the evidence was so clear that a jury could hardly fell to be convinced beyond any peradventure of a doubt that the defendant and his companion were the ones who committed the robbery. el The arresting officer followed a trail of blood to the place where the defendant was hiding and found that the defendant was bleeding from a gunshot wound in the leg. The Miranda warning was given to each of the persons arrested. One of the officers knew the defendant and asked why he had "done it, " and the defendant replied that he needed the money for Christmas. The defendant was taken to the hospital for treatment of the wound in his leg. One officer who was guarding the defendant during the stay in the hos- pital had a conversation with him wherein they were talking about guns and the inherent dangers in a single-actio- n weapon. The defendant volunteered the statement that since he had been shot in the leg coming out of the Seven-Eleve- n Store attempting to bring the hammer forward without actually firing it, he had become somewhat leery of that type of weapon. The defendant makes no contention of his innocence but pretends to rely federal cases which he says require us to set him free. He says that there was no affirmative showing that he ever waived his constitutional right to remain silent and that the prosecuting attorney did not tell him in a bill of particulars that statements had been made to the hospital guard. 2 There is no reversible error in this case, and the judgment of conviction ia affirmed. j WE CONCUR: j j J. Allan Crockett, Chief Justice E. R. Calllster, Jr., Juetice on some R. L. Tuckett, Justice j i : i The federal cases i ited lv the defendant seem to go a long way in predefendant from being convicted of a crime of which he is clearly guilty, but even those cases cannot aid this defendant. In the first place, he was advised that he need not talk and that if he made any statement, it could and would be used against him at trial; that he could have an attorney if he F. Henri Henriod, Justice venting a wanted mil ,i.i i unt wn'ih he j'ln.iM.i iron' f or tt.c sc r v ic i t . li : i i i., pi' i',i ii' v. the question at to hy he 1 done it, t.ih called rights to r main nr, w 1 ti ... .." The ! ittti nt lid; "No says, porsjn snail be to tic Is if 1 ' . i ,r m w.ii-- i . i ouM not pay ril y answ. red r of any so- j ! - i c - on m i ; . 7- M. G Hansen, - Collections 4'? 2 Ip- Dial stty 933 Recovery vs. Jerry snd Mrs. Christof fersonj 1144.00 services! M. G Hansen, atty ed The fact that lie made the statement after being warned is a clear indication that he waivrd any right, if ar,v he had, to remain silent. At the scene of the arrest there was no prolonged questioning at all. Only the one queation was naked. In the rase of tl e guard in the hospital, no queation at all wn asked of the defendant, lie vuh.ntct.ied the statement in conversation. Collpctions Recovery vs. snd Mrs. Thurberi I19G.00 L. Floyd 4921 m r,t so-call- 492lf- - services! ii; ,i.i I'mrtd States simply compelled in any criminal c.ise to be a wit ness against himsclt, , , The sophistry by which the defendant claims the statements made out of ionrt are a violation of tk quoted part of the amendment amazes m cccn if then- had been no waiver of the right. i Actions Murray City Court Now i Kwho-F- M - Collections Recovery vs. Dsle and Mrs. Woodward! services! M G. Hansen, S51.B0 atty Where Thousands listen to I - Collections Rpcovrry vs. Rozll Sue Lykinsi 3P9.nO contract! M, G. lansen, atty 4219- toe-tappin- g music every day! |