*1 the use of money highest that is one of the
found in our statutes. crockett,
J., concur.
WADE JJ., concur
result. Utah,
STATE Plaintiff Respondent, Henry Alveriz, MARTINEZ, Henry
Robert Joseph Matteo, Bert Appellants.
Supreme Court Utah.
May 29, 1958.
388' Gen., Gary Atty. Callister, L:
E. R. Theurer, Atty. Gen., respondent. Asst. HENRIOD, Justice. *2 rape Re-
Appeal 3 convictions. versed, trial. for new and remanded were 16. Two third, prosecutrix were 17. and attempt an admitted All of the defendants inter- accomplishment of sexual at or the they prosecutrix, whom with the course they had up picked and with whom had spent night, riding around parked remaining in a car. erred urge that the court that the defend-
1) admitting evidence School, had inmates ants been jurors to wit- by inviting nesses, in their which in turn resulted examination; and unwarranted inordinate they jurors, and summon had retired by prosecution neither quiz a witness called defense, by 4) admitting conversa- nor between and friend after alleged offense was commited. Other unnecessary assigned are deemed errors discuss. pages
toAs About Hackett, Ogden, questioning are devoted to record R. one R. Bingham, G. L. having as to his the defendants been an appellants. School,1 long object how inmate of the State lest displeasure invoke the was there, the inquisitorial when he been inmate jurors, hold we believe at the released, in the school if he had not only prejudice but engendered was defendants, and same time other bounds exceeded the relationship with to the closeness of his discretion which him in such circumscribe pointed, pressing them. The were cases. repeated, objection. over We that, approved have principle questioning vinced could that such line within discretion, the trial court accomplished instilla nothing have save an might permit jurors an unsolicited minds here was tion the veniremen’s question,3 but at the we sounded same time lot, that such worthless a warning against any appli- excesses probative answers had no value in the es cation of principle, and indicated charged of the offense here. should be rarity, aas when It was a line akin to that which said, we through Mr. Wade that: prove
attempt previous having offenses “By so holding, this court does not probative no connection or value in the es wish it to he understood *3 it approves a of later the commission of practice the a inviting trial court of offense, procedure has which this court —a questions. to ask privilege, This furors refused sanction.2 to granted when in the appears discretion of the court it appears As to : It it that will a aid in understanding again court time and invited and some material issue in involved case the jurors ask encouraged the to witnesses the and ordinarily when some has in- them, retiring questions, furor dicated point that he wishes such a clar- question a witness to to who (Our emphasis.) ified.” prosecution or by not been called pos concurring In a defense, resulting in an indiscriminate but not controlling opin- ion, ing wit than 50 to such Larson and of more Turner would have Justices cir by jurors. juror’s narrowed various Under such the nesses even further when, protracted ques cumstances, involving through Mr. Larson, Justice laymen, by counsel tioning where dare said: Ogden Wellard, City, was tried Web State case 3 Utah
1. This
2d
County,
279 P.2d
where the
School
is
er
Anderson, 1945,
is reasonable to
3. State v.
It
assume that
located.
127, 128,
jurors knew the State School was
n HENRIOD emphasize agree I with that while is Mr.
“I wish to it I how- judgment that the ques- must be reversed. permit proper to to the absolutely opinion is am of the that it clarify mat- ever a witness to some juror, the court jurors ter in the mind the to the to invite tions of the its own motion witnesses. never on n witnesses, jury the in this case should The error committed carefully the guard should at all times anticipated by language the have been the permitting parties Anderson1 this court in the case of State v. by a questions asked witness to answer by In HENRIOD. referred juror.” during course of that case the like to ask jury asked if believe the As to a Two members some of witness. friend versation of with Appel- jury accepted this invitation. home, within hours after she had arrived the court assigned by invitation lants friend, lacking by was so related jurors to ask did not violate details that its admission case this court said: by this enunciated rule heretofore juror will be “Whether a woman effect that where questions of a witness is within unlawfully violated sex allegedly has been * * * the trial court. the discretion of within a ually, any made her statement granted trial court fact that thereafter, admis reasonably short time permission jurors details, if, sible without recitation of request any special witnesses offense, to the commission of it refers not, in privilege does this them spontaneous being a utter such statement constitute opinion, our of itself in and very spontaneity together with whose ance toas determining factors error. The characteristic, natural feminine inclination has committed is error whether express outraged feeling under allowed to type questions asked circumstances, guarantees trustworthin its questions asked he answered. *4 ess.4 or issues involved germane to the clearly zvould he are j., wade, rights prejudicial to the concur. therefore impar-., a fair defendants to trial, allowing them to (concurring). the court’s tial 127, Christensen, 1929, A.L.R. 1. 108 Utah 4. State 340. 276 P. ” be answered would be (Empha- added.) sis In the Matter of the Disconnection of Part my opinion Territory juror should ever be no of the TOWN OF JORDAN, WEST Inc.
allowed of the witnesses. juror question
If a indicates he has the court should invite to dis- Supreme Court of Utah. court, question close to the court the and the June question suggested germane if the is not be issues involved is such as clearly improper prejudicial and therefore rights
to the to a fair defendants impartial trial should not
question propounded. question to be issues, germane and would not be
prejudicial impartial judge
to a fair and question
turn ask the himself. juror requests privilege
Assume that a question asking a and the making sure that the same would be
first proper, turns loose
germane and chooses—the
very asking improper, of an immaterial question will prejudicial have caused much mischief. if the court
too Whereas (cid:127) himself that
first satisfies proper and then asks them the may be avoided.
harm continues this court to adhere to
Even if juror may that a proposition limited approved by first
asking of court.
trial
CROCKETT, J., concurs in the views ex- WORTHEN.
pressed