*1 in the Interest of K. K. of Utah STATE years person eighteen under age.
No. 16562.
Supreme Court Utah.
March *2 are abstracted from H., girl years, K. of 17
the record:
friend, Juli,
and a
from
transported herself
father's
City
Lake
in her
Provo to Salt
Enroute,
they arranged
they
six-pack of beer
purchase of a
Arriving at State
partially consumed.
City, they encountered
Lake
Salt
Street
them more beer.
boys
purchased
who
three
Wilson,
boys,
got
Paul
One
got in
and Juli
automobile with
boys,
the other two
the truck with
Thereafter, Wil-
to a rest room.
proceeded
him to
persuaded
girls
to drive
son
(the
sitting
abreast on
Ogden
three of
seats). They
bucket
the automobile’s two
through Ogden to a cabin of a
drove
Canyon. They
Ogden
friend of Wilson’s
there,
then, admittedly
found no one
Howard, Lewis & Pe-
Jackson Howard of
having to concentrate to
lightheaded and
Provo,
terson,
K. K. H.
for
drive,
the Hermi-
K. K. H. drove them to
Gen.,
Hansen, Atty.
Sharon
Robert B.
Inn,
again used the rest room.
tage
Gen.,
Peacock,
City,
Lake
Atty.
Asst.
Salt
cabin,
remem-
then drove back to
respondent.
stairs,
walking
but remembered
bered
down
explanation was
nothing thereafter. Her
HALL, Justice:
time
must have fainted. Some
that she
appeals
adjudication
K. K. H.
later,
way
canyon,
down the
on the
County that she
Juvenile Court of Weber
with an
collided rather head-on
automobile
jurisdiction:1
within its
The Decree of
was
Wilson sustained mas-
off-road abutment.
finding that K.
the court was based
killed;
injuries and was
K. K. H.
sive head
K. H. caused the death of one Paul Wilson
lacerations, a contusion to her
suffered
negligent
by operating a motor vehicle in a
right leg; and Juli
and a broken
shoulder
manner,
intox-
while under the influence of
injuries.
and chest
The first
suffered head
icating liquor.2
of the accident re-
persons on the scene
chal-
appeal basically
This
consists of a
K. H. from the driver’s side
moved K.
the evidence.
lenge to the
and identified her as the driver.
automobile
(1)
points are raised:
Specifically, four
removed Juli
investigating
officers
the Juvenile Court are
position midway
between
verity, and
presumption
clothed with the
seats, one buttock on one seat and
bucket
therefore review
that this Court must
ex-
The automobile was
one on the other.
novo;
(2)
de
the evidence
in the front end and the
tensively damaged
(3)
findings;
insufficient
considerably
was
deformed.
steering wheel
result was erro-
that the blood alcohol test
that she
hospital,
At the
K. K. H. admitted
evidence;
neously received in
a test of her blood
was the driver and
reliable. The conten-
the said test was not
reflected a blood alcohol content
0.12%.3
merit
are deemed to be without
tions raised
Juli claim to have
Neither K.
nor
judgment below is affirmed.
U.C.A., 1953,
Proceeding
3.U.C.A.,
78-
authorized
41-6-44 establishes
0.08%
by weight
in the blood
3a-16.
more
of alcohol
U.C.A., 1953,
Designated
as the
76-5-207
punisha-
Homicide and
offense of Automobile
felony
an adult.
ble as a
committed
duty
weigh
to review
at the
recollection as to who
event,
accident,
there
time
but in
and to determine
facts.
it was Wilson and the
is no contention that
practical application
supports the conclusion
physical evidence
rule
is well established
our
However, K. K. H. theo-
that he was not.
to the advantaged
decisional law that due
driver, contending
rized that Juli was
court,
*3
prox-
.position of the trial
in close
only consistent
that
were
witnesses,
imity
parties
to the
impacting upon
the
a driver
indulged
presumption
of cor-
there
the
On the other
wheel of
findings
judgment,
rectness of his
hand,
adopted by the court be-
theory
the
the
upon
appellant
with the burden
drove,
that
Juli sat in the
low was
error;
they were in
and where the
show
middle,
side,
sat
the
and Wilson
on
conflict,
upset
we do not
his
evidence
in
they
the
just
trip
as
had been seated on
may
findings merely because we
toCity Ogden.
from
Lake
Salt
differently,
matter
but do
reviewed the
In
her initial contention that
support of
clearly preponderates
so
review the record de novo
this Court must
against them.
[Citations omitted.]
cites
three of our
cases decided
Bastian,7 as follows:
and in Hatch v.
states,4
doing
ignores
in
so
the
sister
but
though
may
Even
we
review
evi-
U.C.A.,
statutory
matter.
law on the
Utah
dence,
grounded
is well
in
1953,
pertinent part as
provides
78-3a-51
in
posi-
advantaged
our law that due
follows:
court,
indulge
we
of
trial
tion
Supreme
may
appeal
An
to the
be
his
and do
siderable deference to
order, decree,
judg-
from
or
taken
the evi-
not interfere with them unless
appeal
juvenile
court. Such
ment of
against
clearly preponderates
dence so
taken in the same manner in
shall be
court is convinced that
appeals
judgments
from
are taken
been
injustice
manifest
has
done. [Cita-
courts.
or decrees of the district
[Em-
basis of what has
tion
On the
omitted.]
phasis added.]
concerning
dispute
in
been said above
governs
Utah5
The Constitution of
proof, we
the burdens of
the evidence and
pro
appeals from the district courts
persuaded
are
upon
vides that
are
be
judgment
be overturned.
should
law,
In
at
made in the court below.
cases
regard
review on
questions of law
in
to the
appeal
Specifically
is limited to
cases,
appeal may
in
before
only,
equity
appeal
equitable proceedings
while
fact.
questions
court,
of law and
of
In Interest
juvenile
K_B_,8
this Court stated
aforementioned
Consistent
matter
follows:
provisions,
statutory
constitutional
is well to have mind
firmly
Utah has
estab
[I]t
decisional
applicable to this review.
the basic rules
review in
appellate
lished the standard
from
provides
appeals
aptly
standard is
stated
The statute
equity cases. That
Nicolo,6
be, “in the same
Porto v.
as follows:
court shall
Del
appeals
. as
true,
manner
asserts,
plaintiff
that this
It is
judgments
...
of the district
in equity
...
is one
action
juve-
Hearings
. .”
which this court has both
VIH,
being
5. Article
Section 9.
the influence
presumption
under
intoxicants.
286,
(1972).
6. 27 Utah 2d
guilty beyond a
doubt.
record, inde
evidence in the
appear
a verdict it
is substantial
aside
must
test,
support
of the blood
pendent
or unsatis-
alcohol
evidence was
inconclusive
11.Utah,
Utah,
(1979), quoting
cated. intoxicated. appeal that she was presumption of We accord the traditional and thus that she “fainted” also contends verity proceedings the Juvenile could not have been implies that she thereby its Decree. Court below and affirm it Thus is seen the time of the accident. at of her of the alcohol content that evidence CROCKETT, J., WILKINS, J., C. hence, and, only cumulative even blood was concur. erroneously admitted MAUGHAN, (dissenting): Justice error.12 reversible constitute reasons, I For the dissent. Irrespective of the obser reviewing difficulty proceedings (1) vations, K. did contends she the Juvenile in this case involves test, to the blood alcohol not consent law,1 to our failure of that court adhere event, incapable she was “ . shall requires refusing. unpersuad consenting or We are separately state specially find argument for the reason that ed either ” thereon, its conclusions of law unnecessary taking actual consent 52(a), previ- Court has U.R.C.P. This sample under such circumstance blood ously the Juvenile Court admonished incapable of s.13 If K. K. H. was in fact requires written and conclu- refusing, consenting or the Utah statute adjudication.2 of law to sions taking of blood permits nevertheless *5 only in the record written sample by It necessari one authorized.14 provide as follows: ly follows that the blood alcohol test result “Findings And The court Conclusions: that the was admissible in evidence and 1978, 29, petition finds the of December ruling. court did not err in so within to be true. That said child comes the test K. K. H.’s assertion that Juvenile Court of the Utah Section a upon is based conten- result unreliable Act of 1965.” accuracy the of such a test need be tion that petition alleged: test, corroborated an additional and cites October, day or the 28th language the Wash- “On about the 1978, did, v. influence ington support- K. H. while under the ease of Baker15 “ sub- intoxicating liquor, a controlled proposition: of that that the ive stance, drug, qualified operator cause the death given by be a and in test a vehicle operating Paul Wilson motor proper the manner.” negligent manner.” Baker upon We the reliance deem his First, orally Concededly the court discussed faulty for two reasons. approximately as indicated 3V2 represent language therefrom does not transcript. pages trial other than was followed standard the neces- so, quality transcript reflects undisputed instant case. This is example, findings. For operator respects quali- sity for written was in all Court stated: procedures indicates required testing fied and that all “ evidence analysis physical .1 feel that Secondly, our own were followed. of, the, injury to the damage even of Baker convinces us that does not ex- na- driver, though questionable require even of a so as tend the standard further Wash.2d 15. 56 12. Rule Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. U.C.A., 1953, 44.10(a) implies consent.
13.
78-3a-39;
52(a),
78-3a-44(l);
41-6—
U.R.C.P.-
U.C.A., 1953,
44.10(c) permits
tak-
41-6—
R.N.,
in the Interest
2. State
dead,
ing
any person who is
of blood from
unconscious,
render-
or in
other condition
ing
incapable
to submit.
him
of refusal
protects
ture,
that I
the Due Process Clause
the accused
was
such that I had doubt
say
reasonable doubt. And against
except upon proof
would be
conviction
be-
W.,
point,
having
J.
also been seri-
to that
yond
every
a reasonable doubt of
fact nec-
injured,
injuries, in exam-
ously
still her
essary
charged.3
to constitute the crime
ining myself
reports,
and all of the medical
urges
that the State has not sustained
myself
physi-
although
typifying
proof. K. K. H.
this burden of
contends the
testimony
particular point,
to that
cian
against
completely
her was almost
received,
W., Miss W.’s
that I have
Miss
circumstantial4 that she was
place-
injuries were still not consistent
at the time of the accident.
car
She cites
seats,
ment of herself between the
between
rule, viz.,
point-
where the
the driver and the deceased
circumstantial,
ing
guilt
to an accused’s
[Emphasis supplied.]
to warrant conviction the evidence must
using
By
the term “consistent” rather
every
hypothesis
exclude
other
than the term “inconsistent” the court’s
guilt.5
than the accused’s
further
had
effect of
substanti-
ating K. K. H.’s claim that
the evidence
Schad,6 this
stated:
clearly established a reasonable doubt she
“ .
where a conviction is based on
guilty
was
of automobile homicide. One of
the evidence
circumstantial
vigorously
contested issues of this case
caution,
looked
should be
whether K. K. H. was the
driver of
every reasonable
it must exclude
police
vehicle.
officer
One
testified
except
guilt
of defendant.
hypothesis
warped
steering
condition of the
wheel was
if the
entirely logical,
This is
because
body,
caused
forces of
hy-
there is a reasonable
believes
injuries.
would suffer similar
Anoth-
pothesis in the evidence consistent with
police
dynamics
er
officer testified as to the
innocence,
there would
physical
of the accident as reflected in the
defendant’s
evidence; the driver would be thrown to
naturally be a reasonable doubt as to his
forward;
go
he surmised the
Nevertheless,
guilt.
does
driver would hit the
wheel on the
separate-
circumstance
apply
to each
*6
right
go
hand side and
towards the middle
ly, but is a matter within the
of the vehicle. An officer testified J. W.
all of the
to determine
by
part
was observed
him with the left
shown;
and circumstances
part
her
on the driver’s seat and
beyond
convinced
a
therefrom
resting against
her buttock’s
but not on the
guilt,
the defendant’s
reasonable doubt of
passenger’s seat. Three witnesses who ar-
they regarded
necessarily
it
follows
rived on the
scene
accident
described J. W.
excluding every other
evidence as
wheel,
being slumped
over the
upon our
Unless
hypothesis.
vicinity
driver’s seat. J. W.
evidence,
reasona-
review of
injuries;
had serious chest
K. K. H. had
there-
be deduced
fairly to
inferences
ble
Thus,
none.
the oral
of the court
no reasona-
from,
there is
appears that
it
[although possibly mistranscription
slip
a
conclusion, we
a
for such
tongue]
injuries
basis therein
that J. W.’s
were not
ble
the verdict.”
position
consistent with the
overturn
between the
should
seats,
prosecu-
two front
as claimed
tion, further verifies K. K. H.’s claim.
explained:
this
Burch
“
alleged offense
Where
During
adjudicatory stage
of a delin-
alleged connection
Court,
accused’s
proceeding in the Juvenile
quency
Winship,
358, 368,
shock,
emotionally
In Re
397 U.S.
and was
disturbed and
90 S.Ct.
1068, 1074,
(1970).
frightened.
«55 passen- middle between situated in the wholly upon rest circumstantial therewith seat, evidence, expect leg he ger and driver as a matter of lacerations, trauma, multiple with the in- and head reasonably consistent face, accused, legs. The and broken doc- then this tusions nocence of person that the substantial tor further testified that there must hold would sustain most guilt of the ac- driver’s seat evidence to ” steering wheel. He injuries from the cused. passenger can sustain chest conceded that a damages to physical evidence The usually legs injuries, but it is face injuries by K. sustained the vehicle and injured person is thrown which are testimony inter- H. and J. W. forward. investigating preting this evidence officer testified the investigating expert constitute the medical officers and point impact of the vehicle main wa$ substantial, evi- credible view ante, dynam- As side. noted right front with defendant’s is reconcilable dence which driver would thrust the ics of the accident innocence, consequence there would be aas right the mid- towards forward and guilt.8 as K. K. H.’s doubt a reasonable dle of the vehicle. may be concluded From the as “a is defined “hypothesis” The term with these hypothesis is accord K. K. H.’s tentatively order assumed and credible facts. Since substantial conse- empirical logical or out its draw with K. K. H.’s is reconcilable hypothesis with facts accord so test quences and innocence, is a reasonable logically there may be determined.”9 known or that are guilt the conviction to her doubt as hypothesis urged by K.K. H. was cannot be sustained. that she was not the driver of the vehicle concerning evi- aspect There is another was, fact, in the back seat at the dentiary insufficiency on the face injuries time of the collision. The sustained record; Court concluded Juvenile by K. K. right H. included a fractured fe- homicide automobile H. had committed mur and a laceration to anterior court in negligence. The simple an act of knee. She also a small sustained contusion stated: its oral to her shoulder and small laceration above Now, question simple eye; her chest was normal. J. W. sus- accident, colli- There negligence. injuries, ribs, including tained chest broken along River. Ogden sion with wall and a fractured second vertebra in the neck. for some leave the road The vehicle did had except no head as she the, distance, collide with did described cut on her chin. J. W. had a passenger was wall. The death *7 ankle, injured right (no broken left an foot particular accident. by that caused fractures), pelvis, a fractured lacerated but- tocks, and fractured left hand. record concern- only The Brian, was testimo- leading impact to ing an ortho- expert,
The medical Dr. tires of right the two observing that the tracks of surgeon, ny after pedic testified in the area wheel, be observed vehicle could deformity he would the right marking line beyond the white from the im- expect fractures to 9 68 feet a distance of injuries edge he the lane for of pact. The doctor described tracks did impact. These prior seat inches to expect person passenger in the would extremities, action. any evidence of evasive not indicate to sustain travel- that a vehicle lacerations, injuries, multi- It should be observed head of at the rate hour moves person ing per 25 miles For a ple fractures to the face. John, p. Diction- supra, International Webster’s Third New 5 412 of 586 8. See note ary. P.2d. sponte traveling properly sua and one be addressed per 36.6 second feet per of entered juvenile the rate 44 feet court per hour at Court. miles nothing in to the record as to the ulti- conclusionary There is most second. vehicle, but if speed legal axiomatic that this indicate mate It is issues. traveling speed at the of had been reviewing vehicle of is in the business Court not hour, it would have collided per miles credibility when the of especially two after less than seconds with the wall in juvenile witnesses at stake. court rolling tires commenced over advantage clearly has in as- an undeniable edge line at white of beyond area case, sessing the in this and this that K. The Juvenile Court found road. attempt a ought not reassessment of alcohol was under the influence disadvantaged position. Further- from our impairment her coor- consequent to more, possible for this Court perception. These were the dination and function proper appellate unless fulfill finding the court’s of sim- facts to 52(a) Utah Rules Civil Proce- which ple negligence; dure, findings of requires fact and comment in there need be no complied with. The conclusions of v. Chavez. make requirement a trial court find- Chavez, decision State v. of law relates ings In the recent of fact and conclusions ruled proper P.2d 1226 this Court directly integrity func- element of crime of negligence is an at both the tioning judicial system, under Section 76-5- automobile homicide I Accordingly, trial and levels. appellate 207(1), negligence least and such must at opinion of dissenting Justice concur criminal negligence rise the level of that he hold Maughan to the extent 76-2-103(4) or defendant defined Section juvenile court should made at all. guilty no offense Under findings of appropriate fact. subordinate error, must ac- doctrine of manifest we concur Justice I do not (criminal the elements knowledge one of deciding that the burden of Maughan in automobile homicide has not negligence) of beyond a proving alleged the acts reasona- of the Juvenile proven been sustained. That is a ble doubt cannot be be sustained. This cause Court cannot question juvenile after entry and remanded to the should be reversed application of con- detailed an order Juvenile Court with to dismiss trolling legal principles. petition. STEWART, in Justice (concurring Justice part): dissent in
MAUGHAN’S the issue was raised on
Although
appeal, court to the failure findings of conclu- adequate
make fact and issue presents which should
sions of