State v. Worthen
Utah Supreme Court
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partHowe, Associate Chief Justice
I concur, except I dissent as to that portion of part III of the lead opinion which holds that the prosecutor’s statements in his letter to Judge Roth are admissible as representative admissions against the 'State. The statements do not concern a material fact and are not relevant to the jury’s inquiry. Further, the lead opinion would allow the jury to give a strained and distorted interpretation to the statements.
Although the letter was imprecisely worded, its fair import was that the prosecutor had no direct but only some circumstantial evidence that the defendant could have committed the…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Hogenson v. Service Armament Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1969
- Brown v. HebbCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1934
- Wenner v. Gulf Oil Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1978
- State v. NicholsOregon Supreme Court · 1964
- State v. StiltnerWashington Supreme Court · 1962
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.