*1 find- tions, a basis provide failed to Accordingly, a cause action. such granting district court verdict, for a directed motion
defendant’s is therefore affirmed. judgment
and the (respondent). to
Costs defendant MAUGHAN,
ELLETT, and WIL- HALL, JJ., concur.
KINS and Plaintiff and
STATE
Respondent,
v. WADE, Defendant Owen
Johnnie Appellant.
No. 14840. of Utah. Court
Supreme Gaither, Lake for de- City,
Randall Salt appellant. fendant Gen., Earl F. Atty. City, Dorius, Asst. Wootton, County Atty., T. Utah Noall Provo, respondent. plaintiff CROCKETT, Justice. Wade, con- Johnnie Owen
Defendant court on counts in a trial three victed homicide1 and was sentenced years term of 0 indeterminate an He his con- Prison. attacks Utah State (1) insufficiency of grounds: on two viction evidence; he was (2) that because negligence,” not found of automobile he cannot convicted 10, 1976, May 10:30 m. on p. At about left Walt’s Craig Finster Leo Sec. 76-5-207. *2 399 guilty. fore find him emphasis had been in Santaquin they in where Cafe [All this is pickup Defendant drove his drinking added.] beer. and, 91 about Highway westward on
truck argument his that his con- support In of Goshen, had a head-on two miles west viction of automobile homicide cannot be in which with a Honda automobile collision sustained the defendant focuses the Cox, wife, Debra, their two his Thomas trial court’s statement that he not was children, were travel- Jeremy, Melinda and “criminally negligent”; singles and he out U.C.A.1953, places reliance on 76- easterly. Sec. 5-201, provides person which that a com- involved in the persons All six of the intentionally, mits criminal homicide “if he Payson Hospital taken to where crash were knowingly, recklessly neg- or with criminal by examined Dr. J. Robert Ho- they were ligence unlawfully causes the death of an- and the two children Mrs. Cox were gan. urges other.”4 And that under that stat- Mr. had numerous dead on arrival. ute, justify conviction, in order his bruises, including and fractures abrasions have been would have to found right leg. samples and of his Blood his nose However, negligence.” it is to be defendant, taken from the Mr. Finster were borne in mind that the section referred to determine analyzed Mr. Cox and must be considered in connection with Sec. of alcohol percentage alcohol content. The 76-5-207(1), under which defendant was Cox, percent was 0.0 for Mr. .08 in the blood convicted, provides: which “Criminal homi- percent and .12 for Mr. Finster percent cide constitutes automobile homicide if the defendant.2 actor, while under the influence of intoxi- cating liquor degree . . to a . which is not material to the Because it renders the incapable safely actor driv- herein, we recital of fur spare issue raised vehicle, ing a causes the death of another the occurred. as to how accident ther detail in by operating negligent a motor vehicle a that there is a reason say sufficient to It is manner.” support in the evidence to the able basis argument Defendant’s further the verdict. of the trial court and proceeds: prior holdings of this Court5 as there is to defendant’s plausibility Such a the two statutes produce conflict between arises from this statement of attack thereon If the two statutes are con quoted. above the trial court:3 together given and each its intend sidered the a I find that effect, conflict. It will ed we see no such highway under public motor vehicle on act bemay noted that under 201 an Sec. li- liquor, intoxicating influence of the “intentionally, if done criminal homicide meaning of the statute quor, within recklessly neg or with criminal knowingly, that he was negligent and that he was ligence”' disjunctive, and therefore wrong side of the road and that on the require negli not criminal necessarily does a cause of the death negligence In the cases referred to we have gence. contained in each persons
of each of the
expressed
our
that one who know
expressly
do not find
of the counts.
undertakes to drive a motor vehicle
ingly
within
criminally negligent
highway
that he was
while he is intoxicat
upon public
statute,
disregard
and in
acting recklessly
and I there-
ed is
meaning
of the
Jameson,
U.C.A.1953,
(1952);
any
another, that constitutes 207(1) of Sec. provisions under
cide position We reaffirm quoted.
above *3 be- on defendant’s reject urgence should overruled. those cases
half said it follows just has been what
From court was the trial the defendant because public highway while
motor vehicle negligently caused
he was intoxicated auto- occupants death of
mobile, of automobile homi- No costs awarded.
Affirmed. HALL, J., J., concur.
ELLETT, C. (dissenting).
MAUGHAN, Justice my dissenting stated in the reasons
For Utah v. Bert James in State
Durrant, Utah, (1977), P.2d
dissent.
WILKINS, dissenting concurs MAUGHAN, J. Plaintiff, CHADWICK,
L. Dale
v In
INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION Care, Inc., Health
termountain (Self-Insured),
McKay-Dee Hospital De
fendants. 15070.
No. Utah.
Supreme Court of Gridley P. C. Patter- Findley Philip
son,
plaintiff.
Ogden, for
Joseph
Rust,
City, for
defendant.
Ibid.,
Risk, Utah,