*1 Utah, Plaintiff STATE SANCHEZ, Defendant and B.
Ruben Appellant. of Utah. 10-year we refer girl,1 old Ogden her home
July, 1959. assigned *2 improper
claimed admission of evidence. not Through appeal, counsel did on represent trial, him con at proper objections that no were made cedes question. to some of the testimony in circumstances, giving Under those is appeal sideration to such matters rarely done aware with caution in an importance requirement ness of the timely objections. for safe serves to This made; guard correct and to rulings when prevent delay deliberate objections to later take However, committed. these so as given consideration, we do factors are due disagree with the defendant’s con cases, tention that in under serious criminal special circumstances, interests where the may justice require, notice this court significant though palpable and error even Vuyk, Lake for City, Salt Thomas objections not taken at were appellant. trial.2 nn Budge, Atty. Gen., Gordon L. A. Walter is The evidence that on several occasions Atty. Gen., respondent. Madsen, Asst. during July, alone and others, went home while
CROCKETT, Justice. away; mother was that the doors were appeals locked, from conviction he had intercourse with statutory her; intercourse "he warn her not to would tell. 76-53-15, Cobo, 89, 60 U.C.A.1953. 2. See State P.2d November, was, after years, Beverly did not so until in She do of 10 home, qualified placed foster is be witness and should permitted ap- mother. something disclosed these her foster facts to unless is, pears leading prompted investigation contrary. Age This indicate to the course, criterion, prosecution. not the sole be along considered with other factors against point attack chief relating quality of evidence testimony of case is State’s give. witness can Allowance must be made Beverly: not shown to that she was capacities difference in individ- testimony and particular degree and no age uals testify. permitted should not have ability mental rigid can be set as a standard. given on upon her answers This is based What appear fact dire examination and the voir intelligence child have sufficient that she difficulty in under- appeared to have some questions put her; understands has asked questions later standing some some of the facts she knew what of her. When asked if to; aptitude that she shows some in re- “It’s answered: meant tell the truth facts; membering relating *3 knew don’t lie.” And when asked if to and duty that she has a sense of moral to the tell happen if she did not what would tell the truth. truth, answered, But “No.” she first to questioning said she further position Because of the tell taught Sunday to school and proximity judge in to the trial and the lie; promised and she the truth and not to advantaged witnesses he is in an position responses might Her to tell the truth. matters,3 pass on these and ques satisfactory, entirely by viewed some as not tion a child whether a to be fairly it can spite deficiencies but in largely judgment. witness must be left to his knowledge that that showed be said just If on the basis the factors recited good proper thing to tell it was a and he is that the child can give satisfied and bad to lie. truth evidence, appears as he case, proper permit determining In whether a it is her this testimony the ruling will dis be allowed to and his not be should appears obliged plainly in mind these he to bear turbed unless that proper assume generally nothing it is his principles: abused discretion. There posi- Mining Milling Co., trial & court’s nental 6 Utah 2d 3. As to statement Nokes Conti- tion see he did so shown to convince us that defendant’s statements about the latter’s this association instance. with mother and visiting the home were irrelevant and A error assignment further response immaterial. In to Mr. Nussbaum’s regard Beverly’s testimony is that questions, defendant, Sanchez, first while ,was improperly allowed to that state any knowledge denied her was in with the the bedroom mother, upon home. their But further men, some other could questioning he admitted that he did know name, who house with had come to the them; and parties that he had with been on taking in another defendant were room the mother home a and had been at the her with committing turns similar offense number of times. This evidence the facts Her sister. upon inquiry being with confronted and coming house cerning these men about this he crime first defensive was directly the time arose their activities at by denials, made later evasive in the out of her immediate involvement the truth inconsistent admissions of attendant whole set of circumstances them, competent evidence because and in commission manifesting reasonably regarded could be criminal conduct and his desire guilt and a awareness Neither also involved. the fact protect by falsifying himself to mislead the defendant and his com evidence cast investigation.5 officers light, reveals the nor that it rades bad offenses, other makes it commission of assignment im final The
necessary to exclude evidence which is admission of evidence relates all relevant facts sur to show material given by McIntyre, Dr. W. examined J. commission of the offense rounding the Beverly shortly after she made charged.4
facts concerning defendant’s conduct. hymen ruptured also a con advances doctor stated that testimony presented through capable tention she was inter *4 captain August Nussbaum police adult, course with no an there was Shockley, 25, Karmendi, v. 80 State See 5. See Commonwealth v. 828 865, 321, 62; where evidence another shoot Pa. 195 A. Wharton’s Crim- general ing affray by Evidence, (12th Ed.) same defend inal Sec. 143. was allowed to show circum ant surrounding murder stances charged. defendant was
433; bruising or It violence. evidence of remote examination was so
asserted that the MANWILL, Frank Plaintiff and prove relevancy no time as to have mis- charged. This contention act Oyler, Defendants Ernest OYLER Leta Appellants. testimony. purpose of the conceives the suggested that It neither claimed nor testimony constituted doctor’s Utah. proof violence, which is not physiology statutory crime. The to this unruptured hymen
concerning for the
well it was solely
prosecutor put evidence purpose intercourse;
possible girl had it. claimed for
and that was all
Affirmed.
WADE, J., McDONOUGH and C.
CALLISTER, JJ., concur.
HENRIOD, (concurring). Justice result,
I but see no reason concur discussing the Cobo case. The main
opinion says irrespective in effect object, the evidence claimed
failure to admissible, and
have inadmissible was therefore, ect, obj failure
any question of our to this case or not even
decision. 958, grave 952, and serious offenses of 90 Utah where it er *** appellate imprisonment,” which matters was said the court could note unobjected injected “pal- a result and consider to trial matters, “capital pable or oth- error.” level offenses