*1 “unanticipated which is and unintended” in compensable.
order to be The issue here is injured “by
whether Booth was accident
arising employ- or in course of his out of provided by
ment” as section 35-1-45 of Compensation
Utah’s Workmen’s Act.
As the administrative law
noted, controversy over what consti compensable injury
tutes a has raging been However,
for some time. this Court’s deci Commission, in Allen v. Industrial sion
— P.2d—, slip op. filed Novem
ber has settled this issue with
respect to applied. the test to be Under
Allen, present plainly case meets the injury occurring “by
test for an accident.” question an additional must be legal
answered: was there causation? Un Allen, legal
der the test of causation varies employee’s condition. If he or she preexisting
has a injury aggravated that is accident, subsequent higher legal
threshold of applicable. causation is Here, applicant
Allen at-. was not any preexisting
shown have had back
condition, although put UTA did the matter Therefore,
in issue. the lower Allen applies,
threshold of causation one easily
that is satisfied here. Id. at-.
Medical causation was also established
the record.
The Commission’s is affirmed. Utah,
The STATE of Plaintiff Respondent, SMITH,
Richard Louis Defendant Appellant.
Supreme Court of Utah. *2 questioned by police,
When the he made a effect, statement “You have me on the property, but burglary.” didn’t do the At Smith testified that he received nephew, the two rifles from his did not but they know or believe were stolen. He fur- ther that nephew, testified his Pe- Ronald terson, pawn him asked to the rifles Peterson, cause also a Utah Prison State parolee, did not want to problems with his own officer.
Smith asserts that
pawned
the
rifles,
honestly
he
believed it
to
do so
he did
because
not know that the
support
rifles were stolen. To
asser-
Garcia,
Manny
City,
plain-
Salt Lake
tion,
sought
testify
to
return
Smith
that a
appellant.
tiff and
prison
to
would have an especially severe
Gen.,
Wilkinson, Atty.
David L.
Robert
effect
his health
because he suffered
Parrish,
Gen.,
Atty.
City,
Asst.
Lake
Salt
emphysema
from
and tuberculosis. He
respondent.
for defendant and
sought
testify
also
believed
legal authority
his
officer had
STEWART, Associate Chief Justice:
parole if
revoke his
the officer even sus-
pected
violating
that Smith was
condi-
Louis
Richard
Smith was convicted of
parole.
tions of his
exclud-
deception
by receiving
theft
and theft
point
ed the evidence as irrelevant. The
of
appeal,
On this
he claims
excluding
proffered testimony
the trial
was that he
court erred in
illegal
knowingly
which
to show that would not have
done an
was intended
impris-
open
he had a
avoid
act in
manner
motivation to
because
returning
prison.
onment and would not
therefore
afraid of
The defend-
intentionally
or
argues
committed
ant
that his failure to hide his iden-
charged.
crimes
tity
pawning
the rifles substantiated
knowledge.
lack of
his claim of
night
theOn
of June
Steven
Page’s
burglarized. Among
home was
1(2)
Rule
of the Utah
Rules
Evidence
Magnum
various items taken were two .300
the time
effect at
of the trial defined
At
rifles.
about noon on June
having any
relevant evidence
“evidence
pawned
one of these rifles at the
tendency
disprove
in reason to
or
pawn shop
Loans
the other at
Pawnee
any
tend-
existence of
material fact.” The
Sportsman’s
discount store.
ency
particularly strong.
not be
As
need
who was on
from
Utah State
stated,
Professor McCormick has
“A brick
Prison, gave
address,
his true name and
McCormick,
is not a wall.” D.
Evidence
card,
prison
exhibited
identification
(3rd
1984).
185, at 543
ed.
United
See
fingerprinted
He
at each location.
Greschner,
States
documentation,
signed
required
also
(same
Cir.1981)
analysis under Federal
good
representing ownership
title to
of and
401). “[Bjasic
Rule
Evidence
rules
Sportsman’s
the rifles. At
discount
materiality
rele-
pertaining
shop,
verbally
a store em-
affirmed to
require that a defendant have
vance
ployee
he owned the rifle.
tend
right
evidence which would
to adduce
specific
intent.”
disprove
it was
State
arrested Smith after
(Utah
Sessions, 645 P.2d
discovered that the rifles had been stolen.
Miller,
See also State v.
in excluding
court erred
the evidence as to
(Utah 1984).
physical
condition.
That conclusion raises the next
guilty knowledge,
Proof of
like
question, whether the
error was
proof
intent,
usually circumstantial,
is
that,
or harmless. We hold
on the facts of
*3
State,
651,
Tageant
673
(Wyo.
v.
P.2d
654
case,
this
the exclusion of Smith’s testimo
1983),and a defendant should be allowed to
ny was not reversible error. Most law
introduce evidence which is circumstantial
breakers
have a
motive to avoid
ly inconsistent with the state of mind re
incarceration. The inference that Smith
quired for conviction. United States v.
not
would
have knowingly pawned stolen
Cortes,
1054,
600 F.2d
1056-57
Cir.
rifles because he
special
reason for
1979).1 Evidence of motive is generally
avoiding reincarceration has
proba
some
relevant circumstantial evidence of state of
tive
value.
dealing
in
with
Garrett,
mind. State v.
191 Neb.
whether
harmless,
error is
we face the
170,
(1974).
216 N.W.2d
172
A defendant’s
problem
difficult
of trying
place
our
lack of a motive to commit the crime
selves in the stead
jurors
of the
at trial.
charged is also relevant evidence of in
mind,
With that frame of
we will reverse
nocence which he or she is entitled to
only
appears
if it
that there is a reasonable
place
jury. People Cotto,
before the
v.
28
likelihood that
the absence of the error
1116,
247,
(1967).
A.D.2d
285 N.Y.S.2d
249
may
a different
result.
Although
judge
a
has discretion in
Banner,
1325, 1335(Utah
State v.
717 P.2d
relevancy,
that discretion should be ex
1986); Utah R.Evid. 5.
liberality
ercised with considerable
the issue is motive because a wide latitude
That is
case,
not the case here.
In this
of evidence is relevant and hence admissi
there was a
guilt
direct admission of
by
Hamm,
ble
motive. State v.
89 Smith. He stated
police
“you
60,
S.D.
(1975).
234 N.W.2d
67-68
me on the
persuasiveness
That the
property.”
the evidence
Ron Peterson testified in sub-
may be weak or
goes
inconclusive
to its
stance that
only
Smith not
guns
knew the
weight,
admissibility.
stolen,
its
Frye v. were
but in
personally
fact
stole the
State,
599,
606 P.2d
604 (Okla.Crim.App. guns.
was, however,
Peterson
impeached
Ellison,
In Commonwealth
by
prior
v.
a
inconsistent statement which
1,
(1978),
Mass.
was too with incrimi- The BONNEVILLE TOWER CONDO- evidence, natory to constitute MINIUM MANAGEMENT COMMIT- error. TEE, Appellant, Plaintiff and court’s ASSOCIATES, THOMPSON MICHIE erroneously be INC., corporation; James R. Michie lieved that his officer extreme Roger Thompson, H. Defendants ly power broad to revoke his Respondents. also harmless. The trial instructed jury be re could voked if he dealt Supreme Court Utah. jury was aware *4 provisions him with extra incentive not to break Moreover, law. Smith admitted that he drinking problem and that
violated the conditions related
drinking problem. testimo direct
ny partially contradicted the testi
mony.
Affirmed.
HALL, C.J., and HOWE and ZIMMER-
MAN, JJ., concur.
DURHAM, (dissenting): Justice majority correctly
The concludes that preclude
was error to defendant from testi-
fying matter his de- about a relevant to however, majority,
fense. I Unlike the
lieve that the critical.
trial transcript reveals that this a close gave
case. The State’s witnesses confused conflicting testimony defend- about involvement, regarding
ant’s and evidence noticeably
motive was absent. The exclud-
ed testimony strongly corroborative I explanation
defendant’s can- events. agree likely that on facts it is conviction would have resulted absent
erroneous evi- exculpatory
dence. would reverse and remand
new trial.