| OCR Text |
Show TW 'Ksn.XY. JANUARY 14. 1971 TNI It ike City leosl Secretary Assoc .anuary loth, 5i?0 Thi.ra'I-iy- ! f. firinr flub - 1 vs Midwest Service A Wherefore, pltiiitSff prey Supply Judgment as fellows, sum of $1G13.48 with Interest, oosts inaarres, end further relief as may be just. Rubber Prod Go. Go ... - Investestate vs Classic hiring Grp etal. ... Wherefore, by reason of daln-tiff- 's 1st A 3rd Qeuses, $75000. net 2 United States Court Action Filed - Daverport, etal vs Cardiore Qlnies In a. ...Wherefore pray for Judgment the sum plaintiffs of $5000. in subscription of stook, $5000. wrongfully withheld, $10000. for punitive damages, $2500. oosts for att fees, costs of actions, further relief. 1 Riehard-- D pulmonary 2 - C Harriet J Land Co as the Court deems proper. - J Curran vs Larlerm J Larson. ...Wherefore, plaintiff preys judgnsnt for gen dam In the sum of $75000., $2500 med exp and $5000. future mad exp, ooat expand led, and fbrrollof as the Wm Court - - San Juan Ooiaity va Fred J Russell etal. - Civil rights violation. A may deem. Bankruptcies - Vito Michael Karl.nl, Jr, if. '7 Tree-vie- w Dr, sic; Radio Knirr. KS0P; Liab $397?.57 As,iyj'J.; 5seBgt $630. 3 Sttii. - 4 - Aiders T Bn.-.v- s, Roy; Housewife; Llah $18752.; aaenpt $232. 5 - Victor $W5. - James Mlchaol Sweeten, etal vs Charles H Sheddon etal. - Civil rights violation. - USA vs 40965 So - :;. 5. Vt ; St, Assets , it, xtwb i-. Assets $1120,; 6 - Rphrain Hogan Tolrwr, 4V;3 So 9?0 5, ale; Refrigeration Keen, nil V. Arson's Inc; Llsb $3498.34; Ernest $295. 50 - Verl H Vbrthsn vs Elliot L Richard' sen atal.- - Civil rights violation. 51 !!.? Pacheoo, 929 Htrhwsy, Sixiny. side; Kaiser Steel $13916. 37; 49 vs Southern Par Mans rights violation. etal vs Jaokson etal, ,,lAieref0re, sun of $18850. plaintiffs pray Judgment for 1st Cause, $1400. 2nd Cause of Act, with costs incurred, and further relief 48 - 3 Hardy Salt Oo Go. Civil Pounds... Oottonsssd Meal... - Civil rights violation. 7 - Douglas Scott Reynolds, w. Woods Cross; Assay 1?25 So 8th Ch., Uh Assay Off; Liab $59701.; Assets 11120. Exempt $7101. 8 - W S Wallace 0o, a eo-na- S ership rtr composed of Wallace, and Douglas P Wallace 00-- pi W FIVE Subsection 2, of Section U. C.A. 1953, which deala with the rules of construction of statutes has this to say in part: The words "sheriff," "county attorney," "clerk," or other words used to denote an executive or ministerial officer, may include any deputy, or other person performing the duties of such officer, either generally or in special cases; We therefore conclude that the charge here made against the defendant was properly laid under the provisions of the statute above referred to. 17 68-3-1- .... Tlie second claim of error by the defendant goes to the misconduct of juror in visiting the city offices and talking to the employees of the city. W are of the opinion that this contention of the defendant is meritorious and requires a reversal. If the efficacy of the jury system is to be preserved the courts cannot permit individual jurors to make private and individual investigations ol the facts of the case they are impaneled to decide. We have no way of determining whether or not the conduct of the juror influenced his judgment in arriving at a verdict. We adhere to the rule stated in prior decisions of the court that the law requires of the juror such conduct during the time that hie verdict rnay be above suspicion as to it having been influenced by any conduct on his part during the trial. The conduct of the juror in this case goos beyond tfi.it of the usual amenities between jurors and acquaintances who appeer upon the scene. Lhr McDonald Livestock A lnvestmantpald for sales of the security) oosts of court and all other relief, Pjr 2nd Cause, $175000. with costs incurred and all ether relief. FOr 4th Onto, $75000. with oosts inourred, arid all other relief which the court d iems junt. PAGE Every officer, director, trustee, clerk, servant or agent of any association, society or corporation, public or private, who fraudulently appropriates to any use or purpose not in the due and lawful execution of his trust any property which he has in his possession or under his control by virtue of his trust, or secretes the same with a fraudulent intent to appropriate it to such use or purpose, is guilty of Actions Filed Central Division Meetings Hu DAILY IKCOKD fact that this case must be returned for a new trial, we deem it appropriate ti comment on the defendant's third claim of error dealing with testimony concerning other discrepancies in the accounts and records of the defendant which the prosecution contends it is admissible to establish an intent, scheme or motive to misappropriate funds. The evidence fails to disclose that any funds were missing, and viewed as a whole, do not support the claim that the discrepancies show a scheme on the part of the defendant to misappropriate public funds. It would seem to us that the evidence goes no further lh;n to show errors in procedures in keeping the records of the city. The evidence does noi show or tend to show either the guilt or innocence of the defendant and should have been excluded. lit vi' w of 11. o are of the opinion that the court below erred in failing to grant a mistrial ar.d the case is remanded to that court for a new trial. We WE CONCUR: 4 Wsllaee J.-h- rtr.rs. E. R. Callister, . , Chief Justice In The Supreme Court Of The State Of Utah State of Utah, Plaintiff and Respondent, F. Henri Henriod, Justice No. ELLETT, Justice: (Concurring and dissenting) 12153 FILED v. Ila Ahrens, Defendant and Appellant. January a 1 1 , agree that the judgment of conviction should be reversed but not for the reasons stated in the prevailing opinion. I 1971 L. M. Cummings, Clerk TUCKETT, Justice: The defendant was found guilty in the District Court of Cache County of the crime of embezzlement and she is here seeking a reversal. The defendant was a long-tim- e employee of Logan City in various capacities. The defendant was specifically employed as a deputy city recorder. In addition to her duties pertaining to that job, she also handled the switchboard, acted as a receptionist, and with some other five employt't-- of i the city received moneys for parking meter fines, various licenses, taxes, and funds and fees pertaining to the city cemetery. The defendant is charged with having embezzled $114 from Lomu C;ty about May 20, 1969. The evidence in the case indicated that on or about May 19, 1969, one Vera Makin delivered her check to the city sexton in the sum of $114, payable to the Logan City Cemetery. The check was delivered to the defendant at the Logan City Offices but the sexton was 'ot given a receipt for the check. The check was regularly endorsed and de posited by the city treasurer and proper entries were made in the books of the city by the defendant. The cash register tape for the day in question did not record the $114 itemJ The defendant is accused of having taken the sum of $114 in cash from city funds. All six of the city employees who used . cash register, including the defendant, testified during the course of the. trial that they had not misappropriated city funds. on or Over the objection of the defendant the prosecution was permitted to show that on two occasions subsequent to the date on which defendant purportedly appropriated city funds there were delays in recording and posting the receipt of city funds by the defendant. However, the prosecution f iili-to show that any city funds were missing on those occasions. On the second day of the trial one of the jurors paid a visit to the city offices and while there, he went over the layout of the offices in respect to where the defendant had had her desk, where the city treasurer carried on her work, and where certain other city employees also worked. While At the city offices the juror talked with the city treasurer and some of the other personnel in and about the offices. A motion for a mistrial was made hy the defendant which was denied by the court after the court had taken the testimony of the city treasurer and also that of the juror. The defendant first contends that the city treasurer was charged with accountability and custody of city funds, and that the record fails to show that the defendant was entrusted with public moneys. It would seem that the record supports the proposition that the defendant, by reason of her employment with Logan City, did in fact receive and receipt for various funds coming to the city roflois. Nowhere does the defendant claim that the receiving and accounting f:r public funds was beyond the scope other employment. It should be noted that the provisions of the Utah statute are sufficiently broad to embrace the acts charged against the defendant. The language of the statute is as follows: The defendant seeks a reversal upon three grounds. i I i While I think the conduct of the snooping juror was improper. I do not think it had any effect on the verdict rendered. There was no perfonal contact made hy the errant juror and no coversation had with anyone winch would tend to make for a biased or otherwise imprejper verdict. The testimony of the Logan City treasurer regarding th'' :u ident was as follows: I was in my office and I had a little gal on the switchl-i- i d 1 came in my office. I was giving her some work to do. had some money on my desk, and he walked to the doorway and he said, "How about letting me have about half of that?" or something to that effect. And I just said, "Okay, I'll split half with you." I says, "Only there are some strings attached." And he just kind of smiled, you know, but he didn't leave. And he may have -- - he walked back through the office and walked and as I understand it later talked to both Mr. Jones and one of the other girls that was working there. He was looking ovpt the plan of the office, according to the way I had drawn this. When Id come back to my office, this is what he said. And I didn't know who he was. He looked familiar. And he asked me if I was Ila's -- - if I had told her what to do, or if I was her boss or something like this, and I said no, I was only answerable to the mayor and no one -- - I didn't say no one worked under me, but 1 just says I was answerable to the mayor, and Ila, I said there was possibly confusion on this. 1 said she was either answerable to Mr. Beck or Mr. Jones. This I do not know. And then it dawned on me possibly who he was and I kind of sat back and I didn't say anything else and he just kind of wandered around. Then he walked back out to the front and one of the little gals came down and she said, "What did he want to know?" And I said -- - 1 wasn't sure for sure then who it was, and I said, "Who was he? Was he a jury member?" She said he walked in and he said, "I'm a jury member and I'd like to know where Ila sat." So we just told him, and he walked down to the office. And then this is where he proceeded to go through the office. And on leaving he came up and he walked out and he said to her, "Yes, I've seen it all, and 1 feel sorry for Donna Bodrero," and he walked out of the door. , He did say, in regards to this, he walked through the offices and he said, "You cannot see Ila from many of these offices." And I said, "No, not directly." They're just at an angle enough that you can't observe anyone in any particular office. And that was it. Ordinarily the granting of a mistrial lies within the sound discretion of the trial judge. Here the trial judge stated: The motion for a mistrial will be denied. 1 agree that it is an unauthorized contact and is misconduct on the part of the juror, shouldn't be done, and it is not conducive to receiving the evidence that he should consider in arriving at a decision, i 1 |
