State v. Gonzales

any result consider will decision court's trial request scope of object to to time danger- potentially ato a child returns for provided window thirty-day during the adjudica- environment, an actual appeal. without time 36(a)-not ous for Rule discre- merits, of an abuse on the tion argument. the State's reject Therefore, we tion. argues {22 Finally, the State removal in child 1 24 Affirmed. involved frames time

strict difficult, im if not it make cases and abuse H. NORMAN discov rules of comply with 25 WE CONCUR: to possible, 78-8a-808(2) Judge, and Presiding JACKSON, Associate Code ery, Utah (action commenced be BILLINGS, Judge. must (Supp.1999) M. JUDITH that, hearing), and days of shelter within with complied be fact, cannot rules some R4- Admin. Jud. Code Utah all. See complet discovery to be 502(5) all (requiring sym trial). we are While days before ed 30 relating to discov frames the time pathetic, shown," "as adjusted for "cause ery can be discre allow," "within court ah 2000 Ut 30(b)(8), P. R. Civ. Utah the court." of Appellee, Utah, Plaintiff of STATE R4-502(5).5 Admin. 36(a); Jud. Code Utah cases appropriate relief Moving for such meeting the State's approach GONZALES, a better Joseph invalidation a blanket than concern Appellant. protection in child discovery rules usual ' No. 990147-CA. cases. Utah. Appeals of

Court CONCLUSION May conten Contrary State's had the State found tion, court the trial admission requests for with the served

been responding. not responsible and was in deem not err did

Moreover, court the trial admitted, by simple requests

ing the father's 36(a). Assuming the State Rule

operation the admis to withdraw

adequately moved discre not abuse sions, did trial court withdrawal, given denying case

tion in this prejudiced been would father refusing withdrawal by withdrawal of the child return have led

would however, emphasize, father. interests the best consider must courts permit with deciding whether when child admissions, review of our

drawal thirty days before than discovery within less regard- place longer time frames Clearly, the 5. days sixty trial, they considering Procedure discovery of Civil ing the Rules time shortened light well in begin work Administration of Judicial the Code regarding particularly frames, the rules are be that adjudication, but well typical statutorily are juvenile to sim- cases modified proceedings well suited should juvenile expeditious man- in an dis- required to be resolved to conduct clarify and when how plify and rules, necessari- would counsel abuse, dependency Under these ner. neglect, and covery child discov- permission to shorten ly have to move cases. limits, continue permission to seek ery time

95G freeway. toward headed

shooting, Hicks light, Hicks saw stopped at a While then He the intersection. police officer glove tossed the over and reached car, com- making some compartment He pulled over. hoping not about ment freeway. the onto continued then was fol- freeway, the car the on 15 Once Pleasant from Orem by policecars lowed car pulled the Eventually police the Grove. drive-by the report of over, the present, cars were police shooting. Several weapons their drawn. had the officers car to exit the occupants were ordered The their hands with at a time out one and came Carter, Carter, Pro- & Harris R. Shelden put in They were heads. clasped on their vo, Appellant. for to be booked. taken police cars and and Cath- Graham, Attorney General Jan car at police searched The T6 Attorney Johnson, Gener- Assistant erine M. glove com- in the looked An officer scene. Appellee. al, City, for Lake Salt gun. After not find but did partment, search, behind gun found was subsequent DAVIS, BILLINGS, Judges Before in the looked glove box. Other officers ORME. noticing seat cushion and, after seat back marijuana under detached, found was OPINION admit- station, defendant police At the seat. seat under the found ted that BILLINGS, Judge: an ammunition found Police also his. was (defendant) appeals Joseph Gonzales in eventually found the one clip, identical tampering with evidence his conviction pocket. gun, in defendant's § of Utah Code violation possession charged with 1 7 (1999). reverse. distribute, and marijuana with intent trial, Todd At evidence. tampering with with FACTS Hicks witness State's as the testified facts recite the appeal, we ¥%2"On He also glove box." gun in the "stashed jury's ver favorable light most know about did not that he testified Burk, dict." State car; did that defendant marijuana in App.1992). Ct. he did gun; and that nothing to hide to hide by defendant any movements August morning early hours T3 In the fact, he stated In the seat. marijuana under riding in a car with up or move get he would Orem, Defendant was Utah. others three the seat anything under put Tug with car the two-door seat of in the back He the back. bench seat it was a because driving, and Christopher Hicks Todd. the car. leave last to he was the also stated seat. passenger front Norton was Brad Orem, through car another Hicks followed they found testified officers 18 Two shot sev- pistol, and, using a semi-automatic seat, though bench marijuana underneath window side the driver's rounds out of eral side of which recollections they had different occupants car's The other car. the other de- maintained officers it was on. shooting. report police to called the In the car. out of last one was the fendant addition, stated the officers one of Todd, {4 asleep woke The shots without put there have been could in the pull his arm Hicks saw back. Todd seat. up off the getting person After firing the shots. window after 76-8-510, Code section provides: closing which argument, prosecutor "A T9 argued that the evidence showed that defen- person felony commits a degree of the second marijuana during if, believing dant hid the that an official pursuit, tampered and therefore with the evi- or about to be insti- prosecutor argued dence. The also that de- tuted, Alters, destroys, conceals, he: encouraged hiding or aided Hicks anything removes with because defendant had an ammuni- verity pocket. clip convicted investigation." Utah Code Ann. 76-8-510 defendant of (1999). Thus, prove State must three possession of a controlled substance. Defen- elements, each a reasonable doubt: requested judgment, an arrest of which action, timing, timing and intent. The ele- was denied. appeals Defendant now requires ment only that the act be done after tampering his conviction of with evidence. the defendant forms a belief that an investi- gation pending is or imminent. AND ISSUE STANDARD OF REVIEW See, Smith, e.g., 927 P.2d at 652. The action 110 argues Defendant that there is alteration, requires destruction, element con- justify insufficient evidence to a conviction of cealment, evidence, or removal of and the tampering with evidence. "We reverse the intent element jury's verdict a criminal case when we intend to an proceed- hinder conclude as a matter of law that the evidence ing by making evidence unavailable or of insufficient to warrant conviction." lesser value. See Utah Code Ann. 76-8- Smith, (Utah State 927 P.2d 651 Ct. (1999). 510 App.1996) Harman, (quoting State v. 767 (Utah P.2d Ct.App.1989)). 568 The de matter, 112 As a threshold heavy must overcome a burden argues police stop that the challenging sufficiency of the car was not of evidence for a id.; an "official jury verdict. See investigation" with Vessey, State v. 967 statute, Ct.App.1998). meaning P.2d "We view he thus did tamper with light evidence. evidence most Defendant focus favorable to the es on term proceeding" verdict," "official as a Bradley, State v. 752 P.2d (Utah 1985), only tribunal, and "will reverse if formal action ignores before but inherently evidence is so statutory "inconclusive or im "investigation." term haveWe probable that reasonable minds must have previously held that police the initiation of a entertained a reasonable doubt that the de investigation is within seope of the stat Smith, fendant committed the crime."" See, Smith, e.g., ute. (noting P.2d Harman, (quoting at 651 767 P.2d at police report body call to dead would Petree, (quoting seope result within of stat (Utah 1983))). However, though the bur ute). Clearly, the chase and of the car high, den impossible. is it is not See id. pursuant report drive-by shooting to a of a speculative leaps "We will not make across Thus, an investigation. we conclude the (internal gaps in the evidence." quota stop of car scope was within the of the omitted). tions and "Every alterations ele statute, properly and defendant could charged ment of the proven erime must be charged tampering with evidence. Harman, a reasonable doubt." verdict, jury's P.2d at "To affirm $13 argues Defendant also we must be sure the State has introduced evidence-tampering statute must be read evidence sufficient to all elements of narrowly only to cover concealed evidence charged crime." 927 P.2d at 651. that is purpose original related to the of the investigation. argues He that we should look ANALYSIS purpose initial investiga I. Tampering Elements of Evidence case, drive-by shooting- tion-in this §11 and exclude from the reach of the evidence- was convicted of tam pering with evidence in tampering violation of Utah contra- added)1 (1999) (emphasis § 76-8-510 is uncon- which but concealed

band purpose not limit does The statute original investi- of that nected to or even original one to the that since argues Thus, defendant gation. require that nor does investigation, one investigation concerned police original pur police connected evidence be allegedly marijuana he shooting, the drive-by In other original pose evidence- subject him to an cannot concealed in words, believes if the ba- argument is the charge. This imminent, vestigation concurring opinion. colleague's able of our sis secretes purpose, and whatever persuaded. areWe investigation, in that question {14 with a faced "When purpose of occurred. tampering has construction, we look statutory It relevant. investigation is not original Ru the statute." language of subjective belief the defendant's (quot 1221,1229 dolph, 970 in or about "pending investigation is Inc., Travel, Bonneville ing Stephens v. limiting element matters. The stituted" 1997)). will not 518, 520 an inv to hinder intent is the the statute the text into terms "infer substantive merely had mari If defendant estigation.2 Rather, interpre already there. are not stopped and pocket when juana used, language must be tation drive-by shooting, investigate a searched the rewrite power to has no the court statute, under the convicted not be he could not ex an intention to to conform statute marijuana im to the not conceal he did as Purser & Berrett v. (quoting pressed." already in his was It an pede 1994). (Utah Edwards, in that an a belief he formed pocket when imminent. vestigation was language of section plain The {16 the evi that conclude therefore believe defendant that the ap properly dence-tampering proceeding or an official "that alleged concealment defendant's plied to when to be instituted" about pending or is ensued, well as as marijuana the chase as concealing, the or destroying, altering, the act of gun.3 hiding the alleged participation to his Code Utah occurs. removing the evidence simply contain evidence-tampering All statute. plain lan- read this the concurrence We and 1. concealed settings in which the very conclusions. different factual to guage and come clarify investigation. None re- Thus, legislature original to might well for to the be related See, evidence-tampering eg., offense. related. scope of the be so quires that the evidence Eaton, (per P.2d 496 v. State expressed by concur- Contrary view to the curiam); Helm, State rence, singular nature of acknowledge the we do 1977); Harley, UT State statute. of the in subsection the article "the" However, 1145; P.2d 649 referring to the first "the" as we read Ct.App.1996). § 76- See of the statute. clause "that an official (1999)(requiring belief 8-510 that concludes concurrence addition, about or is persuasion interpretation the burden shifts our concurrence, instituted"). we defense, Unlike be thereby forcing to defendant to to the requirement that the statute not read into do The State the case. This is not the stand. take original to the related be evidence concealed How- every element of the offense. prove must need investigation. The defendant crime under intent, that turns on crime ever, as in any in the "anything" unavailable cause ways, may proven in several be requisite intent pend- is believes that testimony circum- including defendant's own Thus, it is the ing be instituted. or about tamper- crime of evidence. The stantial defendant, not that subjective mental state evidence. by circumstantial ing usually proven is critical,. officer, pur- The officer's that is Helm, (noting See, that "it at 796 eg., investigation is original commencing pose together from the piece truth necessary rather, relevant; that belief it is defendant's inferences"). justifiable [] facts shown any significant. investigation will occur rebut law, throughout criminal is true As evidence, may defendant circumstantial cases concurring opinion cites several 3. The by the testify. position taken choose must position that greatly destroy, at least would concurrence in- purpose of the original police to the related through undermine, ability prove intent However, con- cases none of these vestigation. evidence. circumstantial language of the any analysis of the tains each element of the crime. De- able doubt Sufficiency of the Evidence II. marijuana was his. admitted A. Gun However, testimony by anyone there was no trial, argued that the State Y17 At made a furtive move or defendant evidence, claiming tampered with defendant during po- back reached under the seat gun shooting in the helped used he hide the pursuit stop. Testimony lice conflicted as solely an extra armmu- on the fact to whether defendant was seated behind the pocket. clipwas found defendant's nition witness, passenger. driver or The State's defendant, in the back undisputed It Todd, Tug testified that defendant was seat- seat, physically not have assisted Hicks could him, ed next to on the side of the back seat gun glove box. The hiding marijuana which the was found. Todd under suggested that defendant State first repeatedly that he did not see defen- testified himself, given it to and had have had under, behind, place anything dant hide or shooting. The State Hicks to use time. between the seats Todd also argued he be tied to the that because defendant, he, last testified was the gun, defendant must after person the car. The to leave officers who However, encouraged to hide it. Hicks testify the car did the back searched support this presented no evidence to ajar and that the location cushion was seat inference. marijuana was found could have where sitting someone on the been accessed alternatively suggested that 1 18 The State However, testimony there no seat. clip disperse defendant took the extra anyone placed misdirecting evidence and thus assisted began. the seat after the chase under However, police. no evidence was intro- argued that the regarding duced when shooting. prior stashed We cannot clip possession. To tam- his constitute clip pering, must havetaken the after the he say that the evidence or reasonable infer- ences from the evidence were sufficient for shooting, believing that an was beyond jury to find a reasonable doubt §Ann. 76-8-510 imminent. See Utah Code marijuana believing hid the (1999). However, just possible, it as ab- going to occur and State, by presented sent impede "We will order to evening. clip pocket all that he had speculative leaps gaps across not make Thus, by merely establishing defendant's (internal Smith, 927 P.2d at 651 evidence." clip, the possession of the extra State did - omitted). quotations alterations We sim- from which the present sufficient evidence ply cannot conclude that the State introduced concealment, jury timing, and in- could infer support evidence to all the ele- sufficient gun a reasonable tent to conceal the tampering beyond a rea- ments of doubt. therefore reverse defen-

sonable doubt. We dant's conviction. Marijuana B. The that, argues 119 The State because his, marijuana defendant admitted the CONCLUSION it found under the back and because evidence-tampering T21 The statute was seat, after he saw the defendant concealed it alleged con- properly applied to defendant's

police as he he and the car were believed marijuana. and the cealment of had to about to be searched. However, presented evidence was insufficient prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defen support all the elements of the crime marijuana after he believed the dant hid Accordingly, we re- over, evidence-tampering. it might pulled car and that he hid - ' verse. obstructing discovery purpose for the ' marijuana. ORME, K. 122 I GREGORY CONCUR: say simply 120 We cannot beyond a was sufficient to establish reason- Judge.

960 result): police spotted the or when the

DAVIS, (concurring in the cohort Judge stopped the car and defendant believed an ( majority's analysis disagree with 23 I investigation into the had com- in this case. imminent, with this be- menced or was majority First, disagree with the I an incentive for defendant to lief there arose was insufficient that the evidence contraband, and that as a result defen- hide respect a conviction with quickly stashed his under the seeing merely witness testified to no because back seat to avoid detection. Conse- marijuana during pur hide the suffi- quently, I conclude the evidence was heavy stop. Defendant bears bur suit cient. jury grounds to overcome the verdict on den Nonetheless, de 4 26 I would still reverse we will reverse insufficient evidence and with evi fendant's conviction only when the evidence is so on this basis (the marijuana) because such conduct dence inherently improbable "'"inconclusive clearly contemplated minds must have entertained that reasonable (1999). construing the defendant com a reasonable doubt statute, statute's] look first to [the "we v. mitted the crime."'" See State language legisla indicator of the as the best (Utah (cita Ct.App.1996) 927 P.2d passing purpose the stat ture's intent omitted); Bradley, v. tions accord State Cannon, City ute." Provo 1999 Utah Ct. (Utah curiam). (per De (first 344, ¶ 6, App. 994 P.2d 206 alteration met this burden. fendant has not omitted; original); alteration see also He that 'a 125 "It is well settled this state One, Utah, N.A., v. Bank 1999 UT bertson conviction can be on sufficient cireum- ("'In 342, ¶ 8, 995 P.2d 7 matters of Lyman, stantial evidence'" State construction, statutory "[the best evidence (quoting Ct.App.1998) Legisla of the true intent and Brown, State v. enacting plain lan [an] " ture in Act is the 1997)). Moreover, '[elireumstantial evi Act.""'") (citations omitted; guage al regarded not be as inferior evi dence need original). terations quality quantity as dence if it is of such justify determining guilt beyond Although cites case law proposition sustain for the it must look first reasonable doubt and is sufficient to Nickles, statute, (quoting plain language ignores a conviction." language holding "[tlhe such 1986)); see also Span, 332-33 investiga- purpose limit the of the does not 1991) although original the one or even to one investi- (holding that "case was based tion to evidence," entirely gation, require nor does on circumstantial it conviction). the was sufficient to police purpose be connected to the for the evidence, light The in the most when viewed investigation." Supra, The original at 115. verdict, jury's provides: showed that with evidence statute favorable to person felony "A of the second commits marijuana; defendant the owner of the if, degree believing proceed- that an official car; he was in the back seat of the seat; marijuana ing investigation pending is or about to be was found under the back or (1) conceals, instituted, Alters, detached; marijua destroys, the seat he: cushion was anything purpose im- na or removes with a could have been hidden under the bench availability proceed- although person sitting pair verity its or seat another investigation...." ing or it; occupants spotted least one of the car's (1999) added). (emphasis § they pulled 76-8-510 before were over provides intent part of the statute first glove compartment; in hid the car, limiting that an person "believie]l another owned the defen element: that defendant investigation pending ability proceeding official or dant's to later retrieve items. majority instituted." Id. The This for the or about to be evidence is sufficient language in correctly that the reasonably possessed infer that defendant concludes limit the part of the statute does not either at the time defendant's this first it fifteen months la or heard of until seen investigation that proceeding or type of added). ter") major hence, Although the and, (emphasis element satisfy the intent proposition here, ity purports to embrace part of the stop the car chase and parts proceeding in both the statute. investigation, invoked investigation or same, supra, statute must be the of the statute, howev part of the second 1 28 The simply apply that inter T15 n. fails liability only if the er, for criminal provides proceeding If or pretation. conceals, "[allters, destroys, or re parts of the must be in both statute impair its anything with moves same, criminally liable un then defendant verity or (1) marijua only if either der the 76-8-510(1) {emphasis investigation." - shooting investi some relation to the na had added). Hence, the statute uses definite gation-of which the chase "the," general term instead article implicated 76-8-510 and part-that section For part of the section. "an" as investigat impede that hid it to construction, statutory "defi purposes (2) ion;2 was a shows there subject particularizes 'the' nite article the defen in which word of limita precedes [a] and is which it verity sought impair the or availabili generalizing indefinite or opposed to tion as applies ty scenario Neither marijuana. Dictionary Law 'an'" Black's 'a' or foree e.3 her ed.1990). "the," (6th By using the stat ¶ 29 recognize majority does that the investiga ute con "'statutory enactments are to be so part the same as the second in defendant must part-ie., parts all thereof relevant the first as render strued interpretations ... are meaningful, and verity availability of tend investiga proceeding or part of a in the same which render some to be avoided or absurd." Perrine provision nonsensical pending or he believes is tion as that which New Mining Corp., 911 P.2d See Webster's about to be instituted.1 Kennecott (citation (Utah 1996) omitted; omission (stating Dictionary Collegiate majority's interpre original). Under the word to "used as a function that "the" is tation, part in the first requirements equiv following noun or noun indicate that a "believ[e] 76-8-510-that defendant section unique particular or a member of alent ais investigation is Helm, proceeding or class"); that an official see also State (affirming tampering instituted"-apply about to be thus become mean limitless situations and was an when "there with evidence conviction proceeding or a tie to the way; ingless. ... Without the de under official re possession ... of evidence took as seeks to hinder investigation a defendant (1), knowledge of vir it; described subsection nothing ... further was lating to applies to By concluding majority's 3. section Particularly telling variance the actual plain language tampered-with its character- evidence unrelated to from the statute's majority existing element. The investigation, of the intent detours ization wording "the" for definitive trades the statute's eg., 496, P.2d Eaton, v. 701 See, law. State case stating re- general curiam) (alteration "the intent element (per of to hinder an quires that intend investigation of driv breathalyzer test results (em- proceeding." Supra, 111 investigation or Helm, influence); ing while under the added). Legislature need for the phasis I see no recording of (taking notes and officer's at 795-96 scope. "clarify" statute's The statute to prevent suspect to conversation with officer's language properly plain its clear and when charge suspected); v. State prosecution of the by the applied results demonstrated the absurd 197, ¶¶ 7, 12, 1999 UT App. Harley, case do not occur. instant from (gun thrown used in robbery by signaled to offi when window of vehicle alternatively, because 2. Stated denied, robbery), investigating cert. cer inves- probative value relevant to no 20, 256, (Utah Dec. 994 P.2d 1271 LEXIS Utah even de- tigation, concealment-or defendant's 649, 1999); 651-52 State v. verity "impair its or it could not struction-of (defendant para drug Ct.App.1996) moved investigation." availability tke or impede investigation death phernalia of to 76-8-510(1) (1999) (emphasis Utah Code Ann. by drugs). added). caused requirement proof a reasonable proceeding or which tually any using from eviden- "prohibits doubt the State to invoke may may not occur will suffice or tiary jury charge that have presumptions a the statute. relieving the effect of the State of its burden troubling ma- Particularly about the persuasion beyond a reasonable doubt of provides jority's interpretation is that no crime"); every element of a In re essential between actions taken meaningful distinction 358, 363, 1068, Winship, 397 U.S. 90 S.Ct. that, depending complete separate crime (1970) ("The 1072, reason 25 L.Ed.2d 368 discovered, is later on whether the crime plays standard a vital role able-doubt may may not lead to an official procedure [and] American scheme of criminal separate investigation, those actions provides presump for the concrete substance by with an taken a defendant to interfere bedrock 'axiomatie innocence-that continuing investigation that is or imminent. elementary' principle whose 'enforce is, conduct That because defendant's ment lies at the foundation of the administra nearly always committing involves a crime law.'") (citation omitted); tion of our eriminal detection, avoiding the ma- element of some Castonguay, 663 P.2d State jority's holding conduct can consti- that such (Utah 1983) ("[Wle ... cautioned effectively tute with evidence presumption the act itself does not raise the nearly every crime impermissibly transforms specific it was done with the intent degree felony. into a second CJ offense."); required prove ("[When 76-1-402(1) (1999) §Ann. the same Tebbs, Ct.App. 777-78 786 P.2d single act of a defendant under a eriminal 1990) (stating that if shifted to defen statute may be episode shall establish offenses which disprove an the burden to element of ways punished in under different different crime, it "would violate the Due Process code, provisions pun- act shall be of this clauses United States Utah Con .."). provision.. under one such ishable stitutions"). option with little but to take Defendant is left testify although 31 The asserts the stand he commit- ongoing is limited because it an "intent unrelated to an investi- ted a crime investigation," supra, stat- gation hinder imminent which occur, merely ing that had defendant had the mari- his actions were not de- signed to juana the same. As we have pocket hinder he could not be convicted tampering. analysis, if de- previously Yet under its stated: particular pocket, selected suggest It that the [defen- is no answer to just carrying place, but be- convenient take the stand and establish dant] could cause it also hid the justice system, her innocence.... In our view, the defendant could be convicted of prove guilt beyond a prosecution must tampering with evidence concealment. doubt; need not reasonable (1) explain Defendant would have to that he defendant, prove innocence. And the did or did not believe an into innocent, guilty privileged whether yet silent, the as crime would be com- undetected springs remain An inference menced, place that he did or did not prosecution's bur- from thin air lessens the the evidence with a chilling den the defendant's Fifth while possi- privilege. Amendment minor, ratcheting virtually any un- bilities of ¶ Kihlstrom, n. 1999 UT degree felony detected offense into second majority position thus limitless, virtually especially where the are defeating presumption has the effect of evidence is contraband. innocence, proof shifting the burden defendant, requiring defendant to forfeit example, eighteen-year-old if 132 For an silence, right essentially creating possession the same un his strict tobacco places being liability eg., upon stopped Francis der the seat of his car for offenses. See Franklin, violation, U.S. S.Ct. he an of a traffic (stating guilty degree felony tam that the would be of second L.Ed.2d illegal crime of with evidence pering to the class in addition of tobacco

possession of tobacco possession C misdemeanor See Utah Code eighteen-year-old.

an case, 76-10-105(1) (1999). In the instant

§ may been marijuana may not have

discovered, investigation may or focusing defendant.4 have commenced

$33 sum, I believe tamper- support a conviction

sufficient marijuana, regarding the

ing with evidence However, the statute. reads

as the interpretation. majority's disagree

I re- plain language of section to hinder intend

quires that that he believes

the same imminent, not one that

ongoing or occur, the evi- especially where

may not lacked the crime. Here

dence is regard to the

such intent with simply does shooting and the statute liability for defendant criminal not allow for marijuana. Accordingly, I would

hiding the on that basis.

reverse App.146

2000Ut ah

Marilyn MURDOCK, Plaintiff Appellant, LIFE INSURANCE

MONUMENTAL - doing

COMPANY, foreign corporation Appel Utah,

business

lee.

No. 981718-CA. Appeals of Utah.

Court

May 2000. I, ("All of a aged, laws Utah Const. art. persuaded by argument counsel I am not operation."), uniform general shall have to a nature will not lead for the State that such instances why decisions demonstrates such the instant case with evi- prison because the sentence prosecutor's unbridled only selectively prosecuted. should not be left will be dence statute prosecution encour- discretion. should be Even if selective

Case Details

Case Name: State v. Gonzales

Court Name: Court of Appeals of Utah

Date Published: May 11, 2000

Citation: 2 P.3d 954

Docket Number: 990147-CA

Court Abbreviation: Utah Ct. App.