*1 991 Gregory Bown, Legal L. of Salt Lake Utah, Assn., City, The STATE of Plaintiff Defender Salt Lake for defend- appellant. Respondent, ant and and Romney, Atty. Gen., Vernon B. David S. v. Young, Atty. Gen., City, Asst. Sa't Lake for NEWBOLD, Franklin Defendant plaintiff respondent. and Appellant. and 12640. No. CALLISTER, Justice: Chief Defendant by jury was convicted a of the of Utah. Supreme Court crime of receiving property stolen and was 15, Sept. 1972. thereafter sentenced to the Utah State Prison; however, granted he was a stay of placed probation. execution and was on counsel, Defense in accordance with the California,1 mandate of Anders v. has sub- scholarly mitted a brief with detailed refer- the legal ences to and relevant record cita- requested tions and has that this court permission grant him to withdraw. A tenant’s apartment burglarized was in building the same where defendant resided. Subsequently, informed the defendant vic- he might tim that be able to recover the tenant, set The stereo that was stolen. thereafter, by means of an old stairway prior that had been constructed to the being apartment structure converted to an house, apartment entered defendant’s dur- absence, ing his permission, without and the equipment. observed stereo The tenant numbers, the recorded serial returned to his apartment, police. and contacted the Based information, police procured on this the a warrant; finding search upon and defend- ant absent the premises, from entered his the apartment by passageway the same ten- police ant had The found utilized. the warrant, listed and upon items in the search return, placed was defendant’s he under possession arrest for of stolen property. contends that appeal, On defendant the by verdict was the supported not evidence and that he entitled to new is trial. .a verdict, To jury set aside a the inconclusive appear evidence must so or un satisfactory minds acting that reasonable upon have entertained fairly it must rea sonable doubt that defendant committed 1400, 493, 744, 1396, (1967). 738, 18 L.Ed.2d 498 87 S.Ct. U.S. 1. 386 *2 992 action, the ver-
the crime.2 In instant the ground on be sustained the that dict must Utah, STATE of Plaintiff and the review of all evidence and the after a Respondent, therefrom, to be drawn rea- fair inferences v. beyond minds could believe a rea- sonable ANGUS, Dennis Blaine Defendant that guilty. doubt defendant was sonable Appellant. and further asserts that the trial Defendant No. 15525. granted have his motion to court should dismiss, urged he that the evidence wherein Supreme of Court Utah. to search was pursuant seized the warrant 7, June 1978. ground the unlawful on the that informa- support tion the warrant was to obtained illegal entry
through the of the victim into action, apartment.
defendant’s he Such
contends, contravenes the Fourth Amend-
ment the Constitution the of of United
States, prohibits which unreasonable and
searches seizures. protection
The of the Fourth only upon a restraint the
Amendment is sovereign authority of and is not
activities by
applicable to the searches and seizures government
any persons than officers other agents.3
and judgment of the trial court is af-
The
firmed.
TUCKETT, ELLETT, HENRIOD and
JJ., concur.
CROCKETT, (concurring Justice the in
result).
I concur in the result. The by search was legal adequate
a on warrant issued and We
accurate information. need not be- go
yond as to that whether under some circum- may
stances there be an “unreasonabe by “government
search” others than offi- Constitution, I,
cers.” See Utah Article 14.
Section
119,
Allgood,
McDowell,
465,
2. See State v.
28
2d
Utah
499
3. Burdeau v.
256 U.S.
41 S.Ct.
(1972).
574,
(1921);
P.2d 269
Sackler,