*1 356
MR. ALSUP: There is no insurance verdict and court below case, Honor, may involved in this Your Respondent affirmed. is entitled to we that clear ? make costs. Well, THE let me COURT: HENRIOD, you, jury, you members of the ELLETT and CROCKETT, JJ., concur. insurance, you regarding
two statements disregard are to both them. Whether
or not there is insurance this law- materiality
suit or lawsuit is jury, disregard you
to the it and are so you may proceed.
instructed. Now
510 P.2d The mere mention not of insurance does similarly DOE, situated, Jane and all others all cases lead to the conclusion that Respondent, Plaintiff and jury prejudiced, was be to such an extent that a fair trial could not be PLANNED PARENTHOOD ASSOCIATION interjection had.2 The of insurance into UTAH, nonprofit corporation, OF Appellant. Defendant and trial forestalled counsel should be pos- and the court wherever whenever No. In this the mention of insur- sible. Supreme Court of Utah. ance, inadvertence, undoubtedly by first n came from the lips of a witness called plaintiff, appear and it to us
that the remarks the defend- of counsel for emphasize
ant were of such a nature as to
in the minds jury whether or
the defendant did in fact have insurance. that the admonition of the court regard- jury
to the that the two statements disregarded by insurance should be
them adequate was to cure the matter. do not believe that the court below
We grant declining
erred in a mistrial. The Young 108, 121; Barney, Hreinson, 2. Robinson v. 409 P.2d 2d 17 Utah 2d P.2d 846. Dolowitz, City, for David S. respondent. *2 ELLETT, Justice: girl, respondent, 16-year-old single The a plaintiff below, represents that claims she single girls age of under the years.1 What she seeks from Planned infor- Parenthood of is Association Utah permit equipment and will mation engage her to in sexual intercourse without becoming that pregnant. states While she honorable, she are and lawful desires an as- brings under nevertheless the suit old, and, sumed name like Nicodemus of from hides herself view. indicates that
The name defendant cou- service should be available those ples who desire to control the size of family. to make strum- is intended girls. pets or streetwalkers out of minor appellant has three contracts where- operate, money it receives viz.: County 1. Lake Commu- With Salt nity Program. Action Family 2. of Serv- With Division Department of ices the Utah State Social Services. Crellin, Atty., City T. Niel- Jack.L. John son, City Oppor- Atty., 3. of Economic City, Asst. With Office tunity, appellant. provides defendant and that contract guardian appoint litem, The fact that is minor was ad we do appeal; not raised below or on. and the error. Infants consider C.Í.S. since the is not void for failure § 108b. question age, right There is no there be no discrimination about race, religion. equip- adults to receive and marital status or the information ment in secret. appellant willing services Minor children in become adults only they have to minor children but when upon marriage, girls years age, parental obtained consent. older, boys age, or old- judge the services The trial ruled er, capable entering into a valid girls given to all minor over must be contract; marriage but in order to secure boys over the age of 14 and to all minor marriage license, they must obtain the age that it is a violation of 16 and parent (or guardian).4 consent of their require privacy constitutional married, Unless children are minors until ignores en- parental His consent. decision age boys girls. 21 for 18 for tirely question the morals of chil- married, When young those duty teach dren and of given the services of the defendant. and to over them instruct them watch *3 plaintiff herein can obtain the in- morality, health, hap- promote so as to contraceptives formation and she seeks piness. provided appointment an is made and her has a which it a statute2 makes parents place are notified of the time and felony any person rela- for to have sexual rejects thereof. She the offer because she tions with female under the parents aghast knows her would be at years, with or without her consent. give idea and consent for contracep- giving of or get her to that which she here seeks. paraphernalia tive to a minor child so The trial court held that the re sexual pregnancy avoid from unlawful quirement of notice to inwas vio certainly make a relations3 would tend to lation of the Ninth and to child of immature more Fourteenth Amendments of Constitu be- commit the crime of fornication and to tion of the United States of America. disease, come infected with venereal to nothing of the morals of the situation. The first ten to the Consti- amendments Anyone adopted who teach a child such tution were as limitations on things certainly newly entity. tend to created to contribute Federal Amendment delinquency IX child. reads: “The enumeration in the Con- 76-53-19, 30-1-9, 2. Section U.C.A.1953. 4.Section U.C.A.1953. 76-53-5, U.C.A.1953, 3. Section makes forni- (misdemeanor). cation a crime
stitution, rights, certain shall he The law has been jealous ever of the deny re- disparage construed or others minors; and statutes for their people.” protection tained (like benefit to re- scind contract) thought have never been It is difficult to understand rul- how the denying protection equal the trial court can sustained law adults. anything in contained that amendment. The law which makes sexual relations The Fourteenth Amendment5 likewise spouses gives lawful between and unlawful be- authority ruling to sustain tween been provision never considered to made. The therein contained deny sin- upon of the law to which the trial court relied is this: “ gle people satisfy may who want to any person . . nor . within each other. jurisdiction lusts on equal pro- [the State’s] tection of the laws.” refusing requests If of this family
The court plan- reasoned that equal here to her and her class denies ning distinguish there was no reason be- protection then statutes people tween married single people. punishment fornica- which knowledge a deni- tion and carnal are such agree reasoning. We cannot his al. We think there is a difference be- vast people
tween
plan
married
who
any
pro-
nothing
or
There is
law
raise,
they
the number of children
wish to
requires
vision of the Constitution which-
single people
may
as a class who
like-
give
secret
the defendant to
its services
plan
wise wish to
the number of children
any person,
single.6
There
married
procreate.
do not wish to
nothing
it has
of the contracts
contraceptives
information and
requires
dis-
with its donors
a secret
so as to control the size
If
of information or materials.
tribution
*4
thing.
their families is
it
one
fact
the contract
the Office
with
single
minor children is not a denial
Opportunity
for se-
Economic
did
dissemination,
the
cret
it could not overrule
not in
people.
same class with
basic and fundamental
Dyett
my opinion
However,
the case of
since
chose to act.
islature
Turner,
given any
Utah 2d
mat-
the law and mores consent of parents. permit the their happen be to Of- Opportunity fice of Economic to withhold HENRIOD, concurs in dissenting future contributions. opinion TUCKETT, J. is re- the trial court costs are awarded.
versed. No CROCKETT, J., and
J., concur.
TUCKETT,
(dissenting):
Justice
with facets vote, rights their examples, contracts,
rights to enter into of ac- marriages, and a number
to contract engaged in with children
tivities legis- as crimes. The
have been denounced the matter now
lature has not dealt with opinion that the court. I am of the
before problem dealt can best be
legislature. this court I do not believe plain- limit the
rule should are entitled to
tiff or