Gallegos v. Turner, 10417
| Decision Date | 27 December 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 10417,10417 |
| Citation | 17 Utah 2d 273,409 P.2d 386 |
| Parties | d 273 Anastacio GALLEGOS, aka Ted Gallegos, and Juan R. Gallegos, aka Ray Gallegos, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. John W. TURNER, Warden, Utah State Prison, Defendant and Respondent. |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Anastacio Gallegos, pro se.
Phil L. Hansen, Atty. Gen., Ronald N. Boyce, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
The appellants, in the Utah State Prison serving a sentence for second degree murder after conviction upon a trial by jury and affirmance by this court, 1 petitioned the District Court for their release under habeas corpus.
The petition is founded upon the contention that a key witness for the prosecution, Mike Don Hoopiiana, gave false testimony at the trial; and that the district attorney knowingly employed this false testimony to obtain their conviction.
At the hearing the transcript of the original trial and of the preliminary hearing were introduced in evidence. The contention of perjured testimony was based upon claimed inconsistencies in statements made by Mr. Hoopiiana in those proceedings. Upon consideration of this evidence and the testimony of two jurors called as witnesses the trial court rejected appellants' contention and dismissed the petition. Review of this ruling is the subject of this appeal.
This proceeding impresses us as an attempt to persuade the court to join in what appears to be a tendency on the part of some courts in recent years not to give effect to the finality which such judgments should have and to entertain collateral attacks upon them upon unsubstantial grounds which would not have been permitted in former times.
In our system of justice there are numerous and adequate protections of the personal rights and liberties of one accused of crime and safeguards against conviction of the innocent. This is the purpose of restrictions upon making arrests; search and seizure; the assurance of adequate counsel; of being informed if the specific accusation; of trial by jury; of confrontation of witness against him; or having witnesses in his own behalf; the privilege against self-incrimination and against testimony from certain other persons in confidential relationship to him; the presumption of innocence; and the requirement of proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
When there has been due observance of all of these safeguards as was done in this case; and a verdict of guilty rendered by a jury; and the whole procedure has been subjected to careful scrutiny on appeal; that fulfills the objective of the law in assuring a fair trial. When this has been accomplished all presumptions are in favor of the validity of the judgment and it should be regarded as having some solidarity and finality. 2 It is then not subject to attack under habeas corpus or any other collateral proceeding except in the most unusual circumstances: where the court was without jurisdiction; or there has been a substantial failure to accord the accused due process of law; or perhaps for example where it is indisputably shown that there is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Patterson v. State
...the evidence," or "some other such circumstances that it would be wholly unconscionable not to re-examine the conviction." 17 Utah 2d 273, 409 P.2d 386, 387 (1965).¶127 And in 1967, we recognized that the "functions of habeas corpus" had undergone a "gradual expansion" to where habeas could......
-
Hurst v. Cook
...law, see generally Andrews v. Morris, 677 P.2d 81 (Utah 1983); a subsequent discovery of suppressed evidence, see Gallegos v. Turner, 17 Utah 2d 273, 409 P.2d 386 (1965), or newly discovered evidence, see State v. Lafferty, 776 P.2d 631 (1989). But ordinarily, a ground for setting aside a c......
-
Tillman v. Cook
...229, 230 (Utah 1989); (6) a claim that the prosecution suppressed exculpatory evidence, Codianna, 660 P.2d at 1106; Gallegos v. Turner, 17 Utah 2d 273, 409 P.2d 386 (1965); (7) a claim of newly discovered evidence, see State v. Lafferty, 776 P.2d 631 (Utah 1989) (on reference from federal d......
-
Salt Lake City v. Piepenburg
...169 P. 161 (1917), and Moss v. Taylor, 73 Utah 277, 289, 273 P. 515 (1929).43 75 Utah 283, 284 P. 1006 (1930).44 Gallegos v. Turner, 17 Utah 2d 273, 409 P.2d 386 (1965); Bryant v. Turner, 19 Utah 2d 284, 431 P.2d 121 ...