Show S BURGLARS TAKE TA NOTICE Need Not Prove Intent to Steal to Convict for Burglary Says Supreme Court An opinion reversing the lower court has been handed down by the me court In tile the case of the state of Utah ap appellant appellant against CI Clyde de Hows and William Watson atson respondents Rows Hows and Watson were arrested in Utah count county and were charged with bur The did root not charge them with intent to and the tile the I case was called for trIal and a jury se I I cured After all evidence had been adduced the trial judge over oyer the objection of the attorney discharged the j jUry r and dismissed the action against the defend defendants defendants ants The rhe regularity of the proceedings was not challenged and no question was raised regarding the sufficiency of evi evidence dence Tile The appeal involved the construe construction tion of the statute under which the ac action action tion was prosecuted The lower court the opinion says held under the law that the Intent in burglary In the first degree must be to commit a felony and that tile the information filed ined in the case casc did not charge any in to steal roods of the value of 50 or more more and failed to charge a public of offense tense It would ho bf impossible to prove an Intent to commit a grand larceny and m unless ess such intent nt Is charged and proved it would be next to impossible to secure a conviction tor or burglary The which was written by Justice McCarty and concurred In by byI Justices D N Straun and J E Fri Frick k states that the defendants having once been in jeopardY cannot be tried again |