Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State, in Interest of Gonzales

Utah Supreme Court

Decided December 24, 1975No. 14085Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partCrockett, Justice

(concurring, dissenting in part) :

I concur in affirming the conviction on the first count. But as to the second, I make this observation: Our statute Sec. 77-21-8, U.C.A.1953, provides:(1) The information or indictment may charge, and is valid and sufficient if it charges the offense ... in one or more of the following ways:(a) By using the name given to the offense by the common law or by a statute.(b) By stating so much of the definition of the offense, either in terms of the common law or of the statute defining the offense or in terms of substantially the same meaning, as is sufficient to…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. State v. AveryUtah Supreme Court · 1942
  2. State v. LandrumUtah Supreme Court · 1955

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API