*1 24.3 defendants that by those two admonition disputes, jurisdiction in these labor accompanied indulged should be carried any picketing simple answer is that like, by threat, coercion, peacefully. violence out activity. prevent may move
states clearly by McDonough, Such conclusion has been stated crockett WADE, in which JJ., the U. S. Court in case participated as Attorney our own General curke in of such state
amicus defense WORTHEN, J., concurs in result. saying: right,10 the court
“The dominant interest of the State preventing property violence and questioned.
damage cannot be It is a genuine
matter local concern. Nor Union should the fact that the commits Respondent, practice STATE of a federal unfair labor while prevent engaging in violent conduct WINGET, Appellant. Keith Defendant and taking steps stop from States * * * violence. Supreme Court of Utah. guard- “The are the States natural May 9, 1957. public against ians violence.
is the local communities suffer
most from fear and loss occasioned We coercion and destruction. interpret Congress Act of powerless them to avert such
leave
emergencies compelling without direc- effect.” to that
tions
Finally, 6) not to dismiss the action Sacco would be
against Pecorelli suspicion ignore and would comfort
lend except reflects little record Agri of Ameri- Automobile, also United Mine Workers see Aircraft and 10. United Cycle Corp., Colo.1956, 300 Implement ca v. Golden of America Workers cultural Bd., Emp. P.2d 799. Rel. 351 U.S. v. Wisconsin L.Ed. 76 S.Ct. confronting us
The sole acts other similar sex whether complaining persons than the witness is admissible. Unless inclined to our own decision reverse *2 Williams, strikingly similar case of State feel 103 P. —which in- do, such constrained not to admissible in state. this Erickson, Richfield, appel- Vernon for J. with has The Williams case been
lant. rep- by approval authority,1 and respectable Callister, Jr., Atty. Gen., E. R. Roger K. respondent majority resents the view.2 The Bean, Atty. Gen., respondent. Asst. for brief, its in its did not the case discuss argument offenses were that the other HENRIOD, Justice. plan, a showing missible as scheme or Appeal from a conviction. than Reversed lustful can be more no granted. and a new trial minority adoption plea for of the rule. year daughter by Defendant’s old a wife him in
who divorced
went to visit
case,
Lovely
The
citation and the
A.L.R.
Sunday
September,
him
with
on a
reasons
with
wealth of authorities
day,
next
after experiencing some
T.he
unnecessary
for
catalogued
therein
make
told
hemorrhaging,
she
her mother
repeat
reasons
paraphrase
us to
here the
raped
defendant had
the ob-
her. Over
the rule.
for
counsel,
year
step-
a 17
jection
old
permitted to
the accused
daughter of
was
McDonough,
and crockett
when
incidents
relate
WORTHEN, JJ.,
while he was married
the witness’
mother,
years
8 and 7
before and
—one
WADE, Justice.
before,
years
the first such incident
twice
I concur.
said,
occurring,
she
when
so
she
old,
last
and the
when she was
Recent
decisions
court establish
similarly patterned.
being
all
admissibility
regard
rules with
Lovely
Cir.,
S.,
F.2d
U.
cited;
authorities
therein
2. 167 prose in criminal of other offenses commit crime an inference basis for case,1 controlling cutions are he he committed the for which think trial,6 and in accord I with decision. is on rele such evidence when reason rules are in accord with better vant some other admissible to subj ect.2 leading writers on this material facts including the absence accident, motive, opportunity, mistake or up and show So to connect these cases intent, preparation, plan, knowledge I harmony this decision are identity.7 excluding The reason apply briefly such rules3 and shall state evidence is that case. them the facts in this outweighs probative evi value of such of the review is a brief following application dence. This is said to be Except where to: rules above referred against rule the initial introduction by of Evidence provided otherwise prosec evidence of bad character Rele is admissible.4 all relevant However, ution.8 recog it is having a means evidence vant evidence may nized that the in his judge discretion disprove prove or tendency in reason exclude finds its he However, evidence issue.5 facts in material substantially outweighed upon one person committed that a *3 by the risk that the admission will cause dis to his is inadmissible occasion time, consumption- undue create character, propensity to substan of or position, bad 307, of Nemier, P. Evidence” 27 Utah Bar Bulletin Nos. 106 148 Utah v. 1. State 2, 9, Scott, 1 329; and herein called the “Utah 111 Rules” 327, v. Utah State 2d 21, 22, 1023; closely 1016, page which follows to the “Uniform 1021 Rules 175 P.2d 36, 46, Prettyman, 191 Utah of Evidence” of the 113 National Conference v. State Cooper, 146; 142, v. 114 Utah on State of Uniform Commissioners State P.2d 764, 768; Har Laws, 531, Rules,” State P.2d the 201 herein called “Uniform 605, 260, largely P.2d 616 to ries, 221 Utah in turn taken 118 which is from the Neal, Utah, 618; P. 254 page State of Evidence” of Code the “Model Ameri- Id., 1056, 1053, Institute, 2d 1 Utah Law 2d can herein called the Wellard, 756, State v. 262 P.2d “Model Code.” 133, 129, 7(f) P.2d 2d 4. Rule of Utah Rules and Utah Uni- 52, 53, 56, Torgerson, Rules, 2d 9(f) form Code, and Rule of the Model 801, 802. in cited P.2d also cases note 1. “Presumptions 1(2) Thayer and the Law of 5. See Rule Rules and Uni- 1(12) Law Harvard Review Rule form and Evidence” Model of “Preliminary on Treaties Evidence” Code. and Ed., Wigmore on 3d Rules and Utah Morgan, Code, Foreward to Model and Rule 311 Model and Secs. Evidence; in and eases note of Evi Code dence, Wigmore- Eyidence, and 157. sec. 157. on. Evi- Secs. wording dence, in this statement of used' secs. and 3. The generally in follows the Prelim- 7. See rules authorities cited above. these proposed on Evidence, inary the “Utah Rules Draft of 8. See McCormick Sec. 157. cates the prejudice or of con commission the crime charged. undue tial or It misleading apparent is not the to how fusing the issues or me harmfully surprise the defend in unfairly pattern. fits such a and Evidence that opportunity has not reasonable lustful man stepdaughter ant who had his several’ anticipate ago such evidence tends degen- to show his moral erated offered.9 character his own daughter, but to show does seem the facts applying In these rules to part that the two different offenses awere previous case it that the evidence is clear general plan, of a design system. his sexual relations between pattern fact that the same followed show value to stepdaughter has the might commission offenses of the two pro- character, disposition and degraded his person identity tend to establish the par- pensity to crime commit sexual perpetrated who charged the crime there is charged. If that the here ticular crime any ques- issue or doubt serious which in this case only material fact daughter tion knew own of whether the prove, is inad- it tends to father, claimed. here no doubt is exclusionary ex- because of missible proof of criminal The same is true of the rule, ception that all relevant general of the offense intent. The commission admissible, that evi- to the effect complaining wit- charged testified inadmissible if another crime is dence of criminal intent of shows the obviously ness character, disposition bad shows perpetrated such offense. person who propensity or the and held that generally recognized charged particular. equivocal but charged is not where the act argues that this evidence was The state necessary conclu- intent is the criminal plan, design sys- admissible to show to, proof of testified sion from the act motive, intent and iden- tem to show show is not admis- intent acts to tity perpetrator. ap- This particularly where true sible.10 This is very pears relevancy little if have inference that the for an there is no room purposes. Usually accidentally. was done act system plan, design shows foregoing From the conclusion in a to show one link chain missible *4 inescapable which constitutes or at events least indi- seems real rele- dale, 122 Mich. N.W. Evidence, Barker, Mo., Sec. S.W. pages Wharton, Evidence, at Criminal Sec. p, (11th 1935) . El. 12, citing People Sec. Lons (cid:127)vancy the de- this evidence was to show degenerate disposition to commit
fendant’s crime,
(cid:127)this and therefore the potential was inadmissible. The un- would cause
(cid:127)danger this evidence mis- prejudice,
due confuse issues if were Even
lead the is obvious.
(cid:127)conceded, not, evi- which I do
dence has some substantive char- degenerate
than to defendant’s crime,
acter and
n stillthe court abused its discretion in fail- grounds to exclude potential far
(cid:127)outweighs its substantive value.
The STATE CON POLLUTION WATER
TROL BOARD of the State of Appellant, CITY, municipal corpor
SALT LAKE tion, Respondent. Defendant
a Court Utah.
9,May