*1 dеnied, problem in rules of proce- the real lies our apparently dure. That motion was trial timely require judge on the that it was not filed. which ground dure fail to upon specify grounds which a ground independent equity The case is an instant 60(b) motion for summary Rule or a motion purpose setting action aside filed for grounds when several granted is Among things, other judgment. hardly appropriate are It is asserted. alleges part and fraud on the negligence litigant lapse. for responsible hold not made in the Rule defendant —claims 60(b) motion. view, my should be remanded In this case determination of the evidentiary for an is not difficulty is that it clear what 60(b) the Rule grounds which motion ruling the basis was for the trial court’s determining purpose was denied for the 60(b) Rule motion. The trial denying the applicable. in judiсata whether is And judge res granted who defendants’ motion for events, be remanded for all the case should in the instant case did summary judgment grounds alleged in in a consideration of the indicate his memorandum decision case were not contained in the ruling. this which basis for his defendants 60(b) argued alleged that the claims in this action Rule motion. by
were the statute of barred limitations ruling 60(b) under prior that the Rule WILKINS, J., in the ex- concurs views judicata respect res to the issues pressed dissenting opinion in of STEW- raised in the instant case. Therе is evi- ART, J. transcript
dence in the the lower ruling
court’s was made on basis of res fact,
judicata. colloquy In in with counsel subsequent
at a to his hearing order so
indicated several times. case,
If judge the trial preceding
ruling 60(b), on the motions under Rule procedural grounds,
denied motions on then clear error for the it was court below Utah, Plaintiff and STATE of in this have action to dismissed the com- Respondent, plaint grounds judicata. on of res Clearly, v. patently would be еrroneous the trial GRANATO, Defendant Frank judge to rule that causes of which action Appellant. alleged could not have been in the Rule 60(b) were claims motions which should No. 16365. and, in that proceeding been asserted of Utah. Supreme Court not, they becаuse were are in this barred clearly is the action. That antithesis of due April process of law.
Barring person the court door to a who
has hearing not had a on the merits of his
claim is a denial fundamental fairness I process due of law. see no reason to judge
assume that the trial who entered
summary judgment grounds in this case on judicata grounds res had valid
knowing the basis of the ruling made 60(b)
another judge trial on Rule mo-
tions. there is nо Certainly, presumption the trial court was correct since
issue matter of law. strictly In a sense
1291 Liquor under 32-4-22 of the Control Act. alternative, In the the to defendant seeks deposi- take the denial of his motion to reversed, tions and the case remanded for a new trial. They reflect stipulated. facts were 1976, 28, May
that on the defendant was a Boston, representative a of Old Mr. owner of distillery. He was also the Grana- Frank Im- to Food and Granato Products Co., imported porting distributors foods. Mr. Matheson was at the time a can- Scott didatе for the office of Governor of the of Utah. prior again
On two occasions to and on 28, 1976, May Mr. Granato’s food distribut- and delivered ing prepared trays business fund-raising to functions for imported foods campaign the of Mr. Matheson. On all occasions, сharged three Mr. Granato Matheson for committee at the Governor an regular had received invita- prices. He others, tion, to attend a along many with Matheson, for Mr. to fund-raising function evening May be held on the 1976. good purpose promoting With the will аnd future sales of food to the Matheson accept- campaign organization, Mr. Granato arrival, Upon ed the invitation. Mr. Grana- Hansen, Phil L. Hansen of Hansen & Salt taking was campaign to was told that the City, appellant. Lake for defendant and frоm all invited fifty dollar contributions Hansen, Gen., Atty. Robert B. Earl F. fifty over his guests. Mr. Granato handed Dorius, Gen., Atty. City, Asst. Lake Salt roster so dollars and when asked to plaintiff respondent. campaign would know to whom the credited, he offering should be declined. SAM, Judge: District evening, Mr. Mathesоn and his Later that Frank appeals campaign manager offerings Defendant Granato reviewed all attempt fifty his conviction the court of an to of- Upon seeing received. dollar Granato, make a political fering contribution while еm- from Mr. the candidate inappropriate as Mr. to ployed representative of Old Bos- stated that it would be it, ton, liquor distillery.1 accept Mr. to accept money, Granato was declined fined ordered that it be returned. $500.00. trial, contends the state moved day
Defendant On the of the charged attempt should be to an reversed as a matter of law on to reduce the offense above; 32-4-22, following grounds: alternative that 32- to violate referred Sec. 22, U.C.A., 1953, is unconstitutional and to the court and the wаs submitted case 4— void; provision stipulation and that of the fore- attempt set determination 76-4-101, U.C.A., 1953, had no out at of the Crimi- facts and that the defendant going applicable nal existence of the statute knowledge Code offense 22, U.C.A., 1953. In violation of 32-4 — wrong. wеre, knowing it Even if it question, any legal prohibition nor of against making campaign contributions. order make out would seem that in matter, Upon the trial consideration of an unlawful contribution making offense of guilty. fund, court found the defendant take two campaign tо a would acceptor. A persons: the offerer respect to con A basic rule view the fair and reasonable viction of crime is that there must be some *3 defendant, any that the without facts is basis in the evidence which the fact wrong doing, money hаnded his to sense of (court jury) fairly trier or could and reason the intended functionary; a and as soon as ably proved every believe that the state had fact, that he declined to recipient learned of beyond essential element of the оffense a the offer. statutes do not ex- accept Our doubt; reasonable and unless that test is attempt violate to pressly make an Sec. met, justified. is not a conviction an offense. 32-4-22 charge having The chosen to the State that the perhaps It is understandable attempt with defendant an to commit a diligently prose- to and police desires state prove crime must that the defendant acted any cute violations of the statute referred required with kind of criminal intent the keep public tо to and in order candidates offense, for the of the commission improper with being officials from involved a step which substantial conduct constituted control, or That is corruption. influence towards its commission.2 objective which indeed a commеndable difficulty with the state’s case re- Notwithstanding we are in entire accord. lates the to matter of criminal intent. It our of proposition, upon that consideration statute, will seen the which is be herein, as it is our con- facts discussed dissent, quoted partiсular in the that this that the intent of clusion the actions and solely prohibitum is not a statute malum defendant, herein, stipulated as are not statute, recognizes provides that but minds as be- justify such as to reasonable guilty knowledge mens rea or some beyond reasonable doubt that he lieving a violating justify it to conviction for crime. was guilty of the offense. of This is said in awareness the formula set 76-2-304, to the issue of constitu- With reference quoted forth in also in the Sec. that it will not tionality, this Court has held enough dissent. It is true that under usual circumstаnces, a pass upon constitutionality statute guilty an inference of knowl- to of the edge have unless it is essential the solution may been drawn from the de- (Inci- Having controversy to roll. before it. determined declining fendant’s the case at may to that such is nоt essential to dentally also been avoid to exploited hand, a need consider the con- getting on list to be other there no purposes, stitutionality or or statute.3 causes for other reasons than guilt.) par- a sense But under awarded. Reversed. Nо costs here, ticular and rare fact situation expressly negatived any state itself such CROCKETT, J., MAUGHAN, J., C. stipula- inference of criminal intent its concur. knowledge tion the defendant had no CHRISTOFFERSEN, Judge (dis- District prohibitory statute. senting): aspect this alleged There is a further nothing charged to be There is with viola-
offense considered. The defendant U.C.A., 1953,32-4-22, inherently wrong person making degree in a con- a third tion of felony, day tribution to assist another in his effort to be and on the of trial charged public less so elected to office. Even whеn moved reduce the offense it is expressly agreed attempted he did so without violation Information Giles, 76-4-101, U.C.A., 2. 3. v. 13 Utah 2d 374 P.2d See Heathman (1962). 839
1293 1953,32-4-22, U.C.A., a class A misdemean- ceived money liquor from a agent for a guilty by or. The was found defendant liquor licensee doesn’t affect his conduct or trial court on a set of facts. intent at the time the contribution was made, nor does the fact that the defendant 32-4-22, U.C.A., provides: Section states he didn’t know of the existence of (1) any No licensee under this act or deal- causing the stаtute this to be a violation in, manufacturer, agent er distiller or or negate his intent to do what he did. representative thereof of intoxicating li- U.C.A., 1953, provides: 76-2-304 contribution, quor any shall make either (1) provided, ignorance Unless other or directly indirectly, any cаndidate for mistake of fact which disproves the cul- political office any political party. or to pable mental state is a defense to was employed repre- defendant as a prosecution for crime. Boston, sentative оf Old Mr. distill- (2) Ignorance concerning or mistake 28, 1976, ery. May On the defendant at a meaning penal existence or of a law is no *4 Matheson, fund raising party for Governor defense to a crime unless: there, suggestion from someone con- (a) mistake, ignorance Due to his or tributed campaign to the fund of $50.00 reasonably actor believed his conduct did Governor Matheson. This was later re- offense, not constitute turned. (b) ignorance His or mistake resulted majority opinion concludes that the upon: the actor’s rеasonable reliance
defendant’s conduct does not constitute the (i) An official statement of the law con- crime contemplated by the involved section in a grant tained written order or of the code nor did his conduct constitute a permission by agency an administrative step substantial toward the commission of charged by responsibility law with for the offense. The fact is the defendant is a interpreting question; the law in or representative liquor of a licensee under the directly code and thаt he made a contribu- (ii) interpretation A written of the law political tion to a candidate for office. It is opinion contained in an of a court of urged by majority that has by public record or made servant proof not met its burden of in showing charged by responsibility law with these require- actions meet the minimum question. the law in interpreting ments of criminal conduct es- necessary to well have may trial court found on guilt. tablish his the basis of the facts that when U.C.A., 1953, provides: 76-2-101 gave the defendant his contribution and person
No is guilty of an offense unless was asked to a roster so that his law prohibited by conduct is and: campaign know to whom to credit would declined, offering, indicating he he was (1) intentionally, He acts knowingly, willing make the contribution but not did recklessly or with criminal negligence рublic want a record it. But even so the with respect to each element of the of- provides ignorance of above statute fense as the definition of the offense the statute is no defense to the crime ex- requires. cept under certаin conditions. Those condi- (1) Elements of the you offense are being interpretations tions written in, liquor be a licensee or a dealer manufac- law or the law official statements of turer, agent representative distiller or agency. authorized аdministrative This thereof; (2) you directly either or indi- does not exist in this case. rectly make contribution candidate Therefore, political certainly opinion office. Defendant is the of this writer licensee; agent only attempted knew he was an of а that the defendant not violation, certainly, intentionally knowingly doing he commit the he succeeded would, therefore, uphold ruling made the contribution. The fact that so Gov- ernor Matheson later re- discovered had of the trial court.
STEWART, J., the views ex- concurs in dissenting Judge
pressed opinion
CHRISTOFFERSEN. HALL, JJ., having dis-
WILKINS and themselves, do
qualified participate
herein. Utah, In the L.
STATE of Interest J. years
S., person eighteen under age.
No.
Supreme Court of Utah. *5 11,
April DeLand, & Robert M. of McRae McRae
Vernal, appellant. Gen., Hansen, Atty. William W.
Robert B. Gen., Lake Barrett, City, Atty. Asst. Salt respondent. MAUGHAN, Justice: appeal This is from finding District Juvenile Court Third guilty taking indecent liber- defendant ties minor in violation of named All 76-5—404. We reverse. statu- Section tory to Utah references are Code Annotat- ed, 1953, as amended. complained allegedly took
The incident 1978, place at the Antler Motel on June Vernal, in Utah. At time of inci- employed as a complainant dent the was testified that room maid the motel. She cleaning one while she the bathtub defendant, year old the rooms the a 17 room, male, put entered his arms on her placed around her his hands clothed breasts. complainant recounted: me, and I put
A: He his arms around just, he had his turned ’round hands . all over.