*1 1218
HALL, C.J., and STEWART and DUR-
HAM, JJ., concur.
ZIMMERMAN, J., participate does not
herein. Utah, Plaintiff
The STATE of Respondent,
and
v. DORTON,
Harvey W. Defendant Appellant.
and
No. 19282.
Supreme of Court Utah. 14, 1985.
Feb.
Nancy Bergeson, City, Salt Lake for de- appellant. fеndant and Wilkinson, Gen., Atty. David L. Earl F. Dorius, Cannon, Roger Blaylock, S. Tеd Gen., Attys. City, plain- Lake for Asst. Salt respondent. tiff and PER CURIAM: apрeal jury This is an from a conviction in jumping appel- for bail1 the course of previous trial for other felоnies. lant’s five him returned His bail bondsman had from Houston, Texas, about five months after prior his conviction.
Appellаnt claims error in the summation jury prosecutor spoke the to the when to appel- the confrontation with bondsman’s Appellant argues lant in Houston. that his right to remаin silent2 was violated when prosecutor stated as the follows: [appellant] gave he When was arrested explanation doing no as to what he was there, at least that is what bonds- [his us, told and there is no evidence mаn] U.C.A., 1953, the and 76-8-312. 2. Under fifth fourteenth amendments to § 1. the United States Cоnstitution.
1219 error, suggests any that he today here that had but I do nоt find it to have been leaving. legal justification prejudicial. for promptly The trial court ad- jury monished the to disrеgard the com- appears The statement to have ment, and he called their attention to his parаphrasing been little more than a of the instruction they tо them that should draw that or the information was filed advicе no adverse from inference the defendant’s given by judge jury trial as the to the to testify. failure to charge agаinst appellant. what the was As to other in Jumping per еntails a of matters the bail concealment discussed opinion, express or curiam I opinion whereаbouts an evasion or failure to no since I explain Referring unnecessary deem it to one’s absencе. to silence do so. explain
and implying thereforе failure to is simply DURHAM, a comment on one of the elements J., in concurring concurs the necessary provе good opinion HOWE, to absence without of J. explanation In justify
cause or an to it. event,
any appellant did not attack the evi аssign insufficiency
dence not and did of generally
the as error. the evidence Under rule,
accepted any error as that such by appellant
claimed here is harmless.3 nothing ap is
There to indicate that pellant pressured explain coerced or to was ANDERSON, Plaintiff, Sarаh Ann anything refuge that he by or claimed de v. warning. manding a The Mirаnda con by frontation the was that of a bondsman The INDUSTRIAL OF COMMISSION lеgal a citizen under contract to assure the UTAH, Deрartment Employment of Se- presence promisor his of in court at the curity, Utah, of Barco State Insurance place required. time and cases The cited Fund, Fund, Injury and De- Second Ohio, by appellant, principаlly v. Doyle 426 fendants. 610, 2240, U.S. 96 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 91 49 No. 19128. (1976), factually quite are different. Thosе proposition pub cases stand for the that a Suрreme Court of Utah. peace lic charged duty officer is the with to 15, Feb. 1985. duty arrest and the to administer the Mi case, warning. randa In the this bonds duty.
man had such no The comment as to
appellant’s presence in the of silence the comparable
bondsman has no connotation cited,
as it the particularly did in cases material, of
because the believable evidence
pointing guilt. to in
We find the no reversible error record.
The verdict and sentence of the lower court
are affirmed.
HOWE, result): in (concurring Justice the result,
I concur in the not in the but
reasoning employed opinion in the of the my
Court. I on place concurrence the
ground prosecutor’s that the comment was Utah, Fisher, pronouncements (1984). appears 3. The latest of our in State v. 680 P.2d 35