*1 pertained That case custody of minor
children proceeding, divorce but we
think reasoning applies equally therein corpus proceedings, well since to habeas juvenile jurisdiction courts do not have of ha-
over either divorce matters or writs corpus.
beas juvenile
missing petition is reversed and the pur-
matter referred that court for the
pose proceedings making of further
recommendations to the district court with
particular question reference to costs are the minor. No
welfare CROCKETT, MAUGHAN, TJ., concur.
TUCKETT FULLER, appearing by and a minor
Kent F. Fuller, Connie J. litem, Plaintiff CO., corpora-
ZINIK SPORTING GOODS Folkman, tion, E. De- Thomas fendants and Fuller, City, plain- Lake
Glen E. Salt appellant. tiff and Bayle R. Lauchnor of & Lauch- Wallace nor, City, Salt Lake for defendants and re- spondents.
1037 ELLETT, larceny, tained or he arrested committed Justice: criminally civilly shall not be liable for 18-year-old motorcycle plaintiff, an The suspect.2 the detention of the rider, parked his the machine entered carrying on defendant his helmet store of testimony detailing the of Without up picked a small metal kara- his arm. He witnesses, the various we are convinced biner, climbing, in mountain an used article jury that the in acted within when ar- had it in his helmet he was rendering gave. the The verdicts it shoplifter. a He was tried rested as court, therefore, refusing to did not err in charge then acquitted on the criminal jury plaintiff. direct the the to find for puni- seeking action actual and filed this appellant The that erred arrest, false claims the damages court (a) (b) for false tive in clearly instructing jury the that the prosecu- (c) malicious imprisonment, and proof defendants' to had the burden of jury the defendants The found for tion. probable grounds show detain- counts, appeal existed for followed. on all and this ing plaintiff. the assignments of error are two There appellant, made viz.: The answer to that contention is that the direct a Refusal of trial court 1. the to appellant did a instruc- not tender written plaintiff, for verdict tion cover in his to the matter. True it is Improper on of exceptions jury instruction the issue had charge 2. to after the the proof. retired, the of “The plaintiff burden counsel for stated: plaintiff excepts to the refusal of the jury its verdicts did find that the original- give to one instruction which was plaintiff rep- anything did the criminal or contemplated ly in the set was that It only rehensible. found that the evidence regarding burden cussed in chambers the ordinary justify was such as to a man of proof, the which does of instruction prudence care and in hon- entertaining an ” carry . a number. . . strong suspicion est and that of the crime shoplifting larceny) being was com- (petty held in a case have even criminal We by plaintiff. mitted request an instruction that the failure to position to claim a in a leaves law too re well settled to The it.3 failing give in there was that error quire cases, citations that in law such as this, jury responsibility the has the and the case suf think the court this We duty to find the the that facts of case and proof so ficiently matter covered the competent support if there is evidence to con no reversible error that there was finding, this the court cannot substitute if the that tained therein.4 It told jury. idea as to the for that facts of the grounds to did reasonable defendants have provides Our statute that a merchant larce plaintiff had committed believe that probable ground who has reasonable plain they be liable to the ny, would not believing for that his merchandise held for had tiff, who although it did not mention person sale has been a intent taken with showing grounds the burden may, steal purpose for the investi or lack thereof. act, person gating such such in a detain undoubtedly dis- plaintiff is young length reasonable manner by the appointed in verdict rendered provides of time.1 It also that where by the treatment jury and was humiliated has probable merchant reasonable and from received, take a but he lesson ground can person de believing that 133, Blea, P.2d (1973 2d 77-13-30, 434 1. 3. 20 Utah Section Pocket U.O.A.1953 (1967). Supplement). 446 Estate, (1973 In re Richards’ 4. Rule Pocket U.R.O.P. 106, Section U.C.A.1953 (1956). Supplement). 542 P.2d 5 2d 297 Utah declaration; Tray, Dog who likewise was treated one make such a badly instruction, appearance things.5 appropriate from the such an matter, shoplifting going There is no on that much be follows: legislature special protection given has The defendant has the of es- enough those are alert merchants who by preponderance tablishing evi- wares, attempt protect goods, *3 their own prove dence all facts necessary and The lesson is not merchandise. the following issues: shoplift, suspicion but avoid the of shoplifting. hand, believe, good The matter at I is a one through which this court estab- is affirmed. No costs are procedural lish the mandate. The matter could then be reversed and remanded new trial. CROCKETT and TUCKETT, JJ., concur. MAUGHAN, (concurring spe- Justice
cially). specially, In I do concurring so for the OLSEN, by Randy through and opinion reason that Mr. El- Justice litem, Gaylen Olsen, R. Plain- applies However, lett I our decisional law. and tiff say am constrained to that an instruction v. on the proof, my view, is so Through Utah, The STATE of its every litigated matter, central to civil and al., COMMISSION, INDUSTRIAL et criminal, that be mandatory, it should Defendants given directly peripherally. than rather It depend upon should not whether it is of- Utah, By Through The STATE of fered. legislate states have seen fit COMMISSION, Some INDUSTRIAL Utah, Road the mandate. Section California Evi- Commission,Third-Party Plaintiffs, Code, dence is as follows: The court on all occasions shall INC.,” COMPANY, COX CONSTRUCTION instruct the as which bears Third-Party Defendant. burden of on each issue and as requires to whether that burden that a party raise a doubt concern- ing the existence nonexistence of a fact or that he establish the existence or preponder-
nonexistence a fact evidence, by
ance of the clear and con-
vincing proof, proof beyond byor a rea-
sonable doubt.
Legislation needed, here is for it is
within the court to declare procedure.1 case, think,
rules of This I U.C.A.1953, Tray as amended. 5. Old was in the meat store with some dogs They escaped, that did steal. Tray beating they, took the he, deserved.