*1 450 forbidden, that the evi-
ing thаt presented was insufficient dence STATE Plaintiff and the conviction. recognized
It in is well the law that criminally responsible held HARRIS, Arvil A. reasonably conduct which could not However, be proscribed.2 understand question in does not violate the ordinance It prescribes readily principle. viz., conduct, standard of derstandable 29, driving a follow person vehicle cannot “. . closely
another vehicle . more regard or prudent having
than is reasonable speed traf- vehicles and the
fic the conditions street.”
We hold the ordinance is not
unconstitutionally vague and that it ade operators ve
quately informs of motor
hicles the kind conduct that is forbid holding
den. is consistent with the
holdings jurisdictions of our sister state been called to cоnstrue driving enactments which establish
similar prudent”
standards “reasonable
terms.3 appeal,
The second that of evidence,
insufficiency presents Court. appealable
matter that is not to this justice city from courts lie
Appeals
to the District and the decision there Courts final, involving the validi except
ty constitutionality ordinance.4 of an J, CROCKETT, J., con-
cur. WILKINS, JJ.,
MAUGHAN and concur
in result.
Harriss,
(N.Y.1966);
DeCasaus,
People
United
74
474
States
U.S.
150 Cal.
App.2d
S.Ct.
Smith v.
State,
(Fla.1970).
3. State v. N.E.2d Heid, VIII, 270 N.Y.S.2d Misc.2d 4. Article Section Constitution of Utah. *2 Lord, City,
Robert L. Salt Lake for de- appellant. fendant and Hansen, Gen., Atty. Robert B. Michael L. Deamer, Barrett, Attys. William W. Asst. Gen., VanDam, R. County Paul Salt Lake Nielson, Deputy John T. Salt Atty., Lake County Atty., City, plaintiff Salt Lake respondent. and CROCKETT, Justice: A. originally Defendant Arvil Harris was (30 receiving property stolen coffee), degree felony.1 a third As a of discussions between the prosecutor, the and defendant’s counsel defendant, approval with the the state moved reduce attempt property, to receive stolen a misdemeanor,2 and class A guilty. The court ordered reсeiving report; after it, sentenced the defendant to term one County Jail year in the Lake and fine Salt $1,000. disappointed Defendant was requested his permitted plea. he be He refusal of that re- attacks the trial court’s quest assigns as an of discretion and abuse U.C.A., provided by 76^1-102(4), 76-6-408, 2. As a crime 1953. Pursuant sections year. 76-3-203(3), punishable exceeding 76-6-412(l)(b) a term not that crime years. punishable by five not to exceed a term First, of error: grounds two the court defendant, nor that he com- inquiry to not make sufficient deter- did mitted error or impropriety accept- justified accept- the facts mine whether ing the second, ance Defendant’s argument copy he should been court committed reversible error when presentenсe report present and allowed *3 failed to disclose to him and his counsel the countervailing to anything evidence as contents of thе presentence report is one therein. favorable about which there has been much contro The court has an undoubted to versy аnd upon which there is some division guard against possibility the that an ac among the authorities.4 An proposi initial cused who is innocent the of crime tion bearing thereon is that the basic pro may be to plead guilty induced without tections by afforded persons our law to understanding sufficient of the nature of accused of crime do not exist in the same the or the consequence of his plea, manner after he has been cоnvicted.5 plea may improperly or that the be induced Nevertheless, he should be treated with the by cajolery, deception, plea bargaining pres highest degree of fairness that can be sure, or improper other motivation.3 The achieved consistent with proper thе and ef inquiry of concern here is whether the trial ficient administration of justice. This re judge discharged duty. that quires that caution be exercised to sеe that false misleading
The
represented by
defendant was
information is not used
to
competent counsel who
an
influence the
took
аctive inter
court without
the defend
est
ant’s knowledge
in his welfare and the culmination of
providing
without
him
opportunity
the case to the
of
advаntage
best
the de
to refute
explain.
fendant. The alternatives were discussed
The other side of this coin is that
him, including
possibility
the
he
those investigating
for the
and those
might be convicted of the more serious
willing to supply information,
should be
crime;
upon
and that
guilty,
of
the
protected when thаt is necessary.
It is to
might
persuaded
place
trial court
be
to
him
be realized that it
helpful
is
in making such
probation.
on
Among
things,
other
ex
investigations
if that
can
done on a
plaining
the
the
of
basis,
confidential
and that otherwise
is
guilty plea, the court stated to the defend
impossible
often
to obtain such useful infor
ant:
Upon
mation.
our consideration of the var
You can’t be
forced
incriminate
aspects
ious
problem,
оf this
we reaffirm
yourself
manner,
entering
but
by
the previous declaration of this Court that
plea
guilty, you
your-
of
do incriminate
whether
the
report should be
self,
you
admit the facts that support
furnished to the defendant
is something
the
charged.
[Emphasis
crime
added].
which should rest within the sound discre
In addition to оther facts ascertained
the
by
tion of the trial court.6
court, he had the assurances of both the
deputy county
supplementation
In
attоrney and defense counsel
arguments
dis-
justification
above,
as to the
the
cussed
defendant’s
defendant
urges
further
entry and the
based on
acceptance
plea
assurances and advice from his
guilty. Upon
record,
counsel,
survey of the
our
he had expected
to be
we have
nothing
seen
the defend-
plead
when he
guilty; and that
ant’s charge that
judge
failed in
he
because
received
regards
what he
as toо
Forsyth,
3.
Velasquez
Pratt,
5. See
21 Utah 2d
Boykin
Alabama,
395 U.S.
89 S.Ct.
and authorities cited therein.
Doremus,
29 Utah 2d
This is the
of an extensive annotation
We note that
this
the rule in ten
analysis
seq.
in 40 A.L.R.3d
et
of our sister states. See
fendant pur- to the same own statements
fendant’s significant state-
pose. This included the that: “This
ment gives I a fence”.
first time have been view that to the trial clearly understood what be- FRANK, Diane Olive Plaintiff in the reduction ing done of his v. said here- with what has beеn Consistent error, prejudicial neither in, we have found FRANK, Charles Gordon part on the abuse of discretion nor reversal of would judgment. No costs awarded.
HALL, J., concurs. J., concurs result. result):
WILKINS, (concurring in Justice a brief com- concur in result and add
I concerning the matter on one
ment pre-sentence reports to de-
disclosing
fendant, split which was Smith, v. in Reddish this Court
decision Justice in which Mr. dissenting opin-
Maughan I each wrote reasons noted
ions. For
State, Alaska,
Thompson
and a criminal defеndant
not with-