OCR Text |
Show FRIDAY, MARCH 30, - Eva Edwards and Utah va JAY NEPHI of State EDUARDS vs Ute Liner, gam; $75.00; garn ludg 321 190667 i Co. va C. TROLIN LAWRENCE 326 Aasn vs AUSTIN - Dixie Beagley vs - Laura OIL ants) 322 - State of Utah.Rd AND RENA NOLAND WARREN Comm A. in favor of defts; $12,050.00; 321 Judgment NOLAND; - Linda Klllpack vs Pltf$865.97 $$37.30; 323 JOSEPH H. SMART; - Delbert H. McKelllps F. PARRY AND GEORGE FIDDLER; Judgment In favor of deft; $38.70; 320 - vs MC KEN Valley Lbr.Co Kamas 323 210369 - Tr ana we stern General Agency vs S. CUNNINGHAM; Pltf$5, 798.40; $407.01; $29.0l - 208871 Gordon Wilson Chev.Co va FIDELITY SKI AND COMPANY CAPITOL PARK CITY WEST, INC; Plf $1,850.78; $478.49; $33.40; 323 - Bountiful 209446 Inc. Motor Salea ROBERT SEGERBALL VS Pltf$2500.00; 314 - Helen Josie Calanl vs Alton Alfred Owens CALLISTER. 10107 - Billy Defendant appeals from his conviction by a jury of the crime of grand larceny. He was sentenced to the Utah State Prison for a term provided by law. Duff vs Edward Janelle Duff Defendant was found guilty of the felonious taking of three truck tires, which had previously been on a trailer parked at the mill site of Essex International near Fillmore, Utah. The driver of the truck discovered the tires missing on February 5, 1972; he notified the sheriff of his loss. The following Monday, the driver, Travis Layton, located one of the missing tires at a commercial garage owned by defendant's father-in-laSubsequently, the other two tires were found in a cellar at the premises of defendant's father-in-la- - Clara Lobato vs Joe Antonio Lobato 10072 - Elolse Bailey vs Robert Leroy Bailey 10073 Dean - Connie Fern Easton vs J. Easton 10074 - Bonnie J. Larry G. 10075 - Marjorie Zdunich vs w. w. vs During the evening hours of the day that the tires were found, defendant was informed by relatives that Mr. Layton intended to file a criminal complaint. Bock Defendant strolled into the edifice wherein the county attorney's office, the sheriff's office, and the court are located in Beaver, Utah. Mr. Layton and his wife, the county attorney, the sheriff, and others were in the county attorney's office, which is adjacent to the sheriff's office. When Mr. Layton observed defendant, he immediately engaged him in a conversation. Mr. Layton queried why defendant had stolen the tires, and defendant shrugged his shoulders and responded that he had no reason. Mr. Layton asked if the defendant needed the money that bad; and defendant replied that he needed the money. Mr. Layton remarked that it wasn't very smart to leave the jack sitting underneath the trailer, especially because it belonged to defendant's employer (a subcontractor at the mill site). At this point the sheriff interrupted the conversation, took the defendant into the adjoining office, placed him under arrest, and informed him of his constitutional rights. 10076 - Marla Clifton vs Robert Clifton 10077 - Jeanette Lohr vs vin Lohr - Patricia A lane Hansen vs Clinton Grant Hansen - Patsy Collins vs Russell David Collins 10079 - Lucille Mlnter Latino vs Salvatore Sam. Latino Divorces Granted - Vickie Sue Tippetts vs Arland Ray Tippetts 7914 - Clara H. Cox - Jacklyn D. Blesele va William H. Blesele 3012 - Norma M. Hunter vs 9097 Vaughn B. Hunter - Janneth Rennee Carroll 7236 vs Charles Myron Carroll - 7248 Howard Gary Cole 8953 - Richard - Kristi Jensen Orltz vs Robert J. Orltz bara T. Cox 10085 - Steven John Jardine vs Lana Faye Jardine 10086 - Linda Treadwell vs Charles Alan Treadwell N. Briggs vs Briggs M. 8990 Eugene W. Cox va Bar- Hill - Andrew B. Berry, Jr. vs 9332 Defendant further urges that the trial court erred in admitting certain statements made by defendant to the sheriff after defendant had been informed of his constitutional rights. Defendant contends that such statements were made involuntarily. The trial court held an evidentiary hearing and ruled that the defendant made the statements freely and voluntarily, after he had been fully informed of his constitutional rights. - Helen V. Coon vs Grant Coon The record, and in particular defendant's testimony, sustains the determination of the trial court that defendant, with full awareness of his rights, waived his 6 rights to remain silent and to have counsel present. 9226- - Frances P. Crosier vs Robert J. Crosier 9041 . - Margie Irene Butt va Butt 6522 OFFICE HOME OR APARTMENT a Low Cost Maintenance A Janitorial Service e Service e No job too big or small e Reliable, professional service e 20 years experience e We are bonded and insured against liability 7263 - Jack Fitts Anne P. Fitts vs Jerry 9209 - Christina Anderson vs James Anderson 24-H- r. tar Cell Free litlmato 34 bourse Say 7 Soys o weoli 322-311- ' Norman Doerr vs Dee - 9224 Ann Doerr - Terrill Lee Hopper vs 3740 Verla Lewis Hopper - Claire 9922 ard H. West vs Rich- West D. - Doris A. Cullen vs Robert A. Cullen 8788 5165 P 4 COMPANY, INC. 1SS South lnd last Salt Luba City WALKIt SANKaBO Accsmo - Mary Lynne Yakovlch Jack Lloyd Jones 6495 - Jo Ellen Cunnings vs Velgh X. Cummings 2888 - Patricia Ann trial court is affirmed. vs - Sandra Sharon Jones vs Michael David Ackley survey of the record fails to substantiate defendant's assertions. Criminal intent is often established by conduct and circumstances rather than expressions of intent.6 The facts established by the record indicate that defendant took the tires and concealed them and subsequently admitted that he took them because he needed the money. The trial court properly submitted the issue of defendant's guilt to the A The judgment of the Walter Yakovlch 9163 Finally defendant contends that the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss and by submitting the case to the jury because the prosecution had failed to prove defendant's intent to commit larceny. Defendant has cited the facts. which support the theory that he presented at trial, namely, that he took the tires with the understanding that he was removing his employer's property. Defendant concludes that all reasonable minds would find based on the evidence that he did not take the tires with an intent to steal. jury. 3 KLEEN-EM-U- 384 -- 9987 - Diane Steele Chlpman vs James Steven Chlpman - Lynda Heyn Pantelakia v Terry Sam Pantelakis Help has arrived for your ed U.S. 4Jb, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 10 A.L.R. 3d 974 )1966). 2. Note 1, supra, 3. State v. Carlsen, 25 Utah 2d 305, 308, 480 P.2d 736 (1971); People v. Sam, A toa 71 r 77 Pal TJlr RfU 454 P. 700 II 9691. Miranda v. Arizona does not proscribe the admission of a statement of a criminal defendant in custody which was not made in response to any process of interrogation initiated by the police or by someone acting as an agent or instrumen4 tality of the police. 1. Ray Devoy 9 On appeal, defendant contends that under Miranda v. Arizona his statements were inadmissible, since he had not been informed of his constitutional rights. Defendant as ribes to the aforementioned circumstances, a atmosphere, which he contends by itself impels the mandatory application of an exclusionary rule of all admissions made by a criminal defendant. Miranda v. Arizona is not applicable; at the time defendant made the admissions, he was not under arrest and he had not been physically deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way, i. e. , in custody. 3 Furthermore, Elizabeth S. Hill vs W. Ellen Dorle Berry BUILDING. The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing to determine the admissibility of the admissions made by defendant to Mr. Layton. The trial court ruled that under the circumstances the constitutional rights of defendant had not been violated and that defendant had acted voluntarily. The court cited two factors: first, while defendant knew he was a suspect, at the time he made the statement, no officer had him in custody and no officer had requested that he appear at the county attorney's office; second, defendant, upon entering the building on his own volition, voluntarily and without coercion, influence or pressure, responded immediately to the questions by the party from whom the property was missing. police-dominat- 9120 - Jaren Kent Baxter vs Bonnie Sue Cordova Baxter 9412 DIRTY va Cole 10083 - Julie Ann Fox vs Vernon Dixon Fox 10084. vs Mostyn Cox Colleen - Stephen Cal- 10078 J. 10081 - Bonnie Lucille Keener vs Ronald Eugene Keener 10087 Bock Chief Justice: , 10080 - Linda Kounalls vs Anthony G. Kounalls Kim L. M. Cummings, Clerk Owens 8111 Divorces Filed 10082 March 13, 1973 Edward Jim Guerrero, Defendant and Appellant. REX 323 FILED v, Steve Richard Zdunich Pltf$165.45 NEIL; No. 13072 Plaintiff and Respondent, Hop- ELMER 210125 St. (48) $tate of Utah, - Dorothy Schutte va Harvey Schutte 10108 204816 204271 10104 10106 (judgment In favor of defend- 198070 Dr. (18) Rochelle Fox. 8340 Escalante In The Supreme Court Of The State Of Utah Ann 10105 - Herman D. Stelnfeldt vs Kathy L. Stelnfeldt Pltf$12,631 COMPANY; Edward kins vs James L. Hopkins Gene GENTRY; - Salt Lake City vs 202714 Hollis Cotton, 1612 Richards St. (.56) to Betty Luclle Mortensen 1612 Richards Marvin Jay LaBard, 1938 Douglas St. (28) to Julie Wayne - Earlene Virginia 10103 AND GENTRY M. James Grant Thomas Ballard va Bruce Henrold Ballard Pltf $11,435.11; $24.40; 321 E. CHARLES vs - 10102 cloaure 327 195854 - Intermountain Farmers vs 10100 Alan LundSulllvan 607 1st Ave to Gayle Leslie Morris (25) 2169 St. Mary 'a Dr. Melvin Beagley 210701 - Salt Lake City Emp. Cr. Union va DAVID M. CAMPBELL AND GILDA V. CAMPBELL; fore- V-- L - Marsha K. Salazar vs Salazar, Jr. 10101 AND TROLIN; Forecloaure VERNA 10099 Benny vs Janet K. Thomas - Metropolitan Finance 2C9527 Marriage Licenses DlVOrcesFlIfid District Court Judgments page four RECORD THE DAILY 1973 Ackley vs 4. State v. Moraine, 25 Utah 2d 51, 54, 475 P. 2d 831 (1970); Washington v. People, 169 Colo. 323, 455 P. 2d 656 (1969); State v. Fletcher, 279 N.C. 85, 181 S,E2d 405 (1971); 31 A. L.R. 3d 565, Anno: Custodial Interrogation with Miranda v. Arizona, Secs. 27(b) and 28(b). 5. State v. Scandrett, 24 Utah 2d 202, 207, 468 P.2d 639 (1970). 6. State v. Shonka, 3 Utah 2d 124, 127, 279 P.2d 711 (1955). |