In re Hilton
Decision Date | 01 July 1916 |
Docket Number | 2886 |
Citation | 158 P. 691,48 Utah 172 |
Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Parties | In re HILTON |
In the matter of the charges against Orrin N. Hilton, an attorney.
Respondent disbarred.
C. S Varian, F. K. Nebeker and A. L. Hoppaugh for Grievance Committee.
Ira Snyder, Soren X Christensen for respondent.
OPINION
This is a proceeding instituted by the grievance committee of the State Bar Association to disbar respondent, Orrin N. Hilton a member of the bar of this court.
It is charged in the information that he is guilty of unprofessional conduct in the particulars that he, in violation of his oath and of his duty as an officer of this court, and with the intent to bring the courts and judges of this State into disrepute, did falsely and maliciously charge that they, in the discharge of their official duties, were subservient to and controlled by a religious power foreign to the laws and the Constitution of the State; exhibited towards them a contemptuous disregard of their authority; imputed to them dishonorable and unlawful motives and acts in the discharge of their official duties, and in furtherance thereof did willfully misrepresent the facts and proceedings of a case had before the courts of this State, wherein the State of Utah was plaintiff, and one Joseph Hillstrom, charged with and convicted of first degree murder, the defendant, and especially did falsely charge and state that this court, through a preponderating and an imponderable and undefined influence of the Mormon Church, was persuaded to take an attitude of hostility toward Hillstrom, and that the views expressed by this court in that case were but in consonance with the views of the church; and with like purpose and intent, and to bring the administration of the law of this State into disrepute, willfully and falsely misrepresented the proceedings of the case before the state board of pardons, charged the Justices of this court, who, by virtue of their office, are also members of such board, as being with others, responsible for "false, wicked, and malicious aspersions on Hillstrom's character," and falsely and maliciously attributed to such justices as such members dishonest acts and motives. The information is largely predicated on a public address delivered by the respondent in Chicago in funeral rites over the body of Hillstrom and on interviews prepared by himself and at his request published by the local press.
In January, 1914, at ten o'clock at night, two men, with masks over their faces, guns in hand, and for the purpose of robbery or murder, entered a grocery store at Salt Lake City and deliberately shot to death the storekeeper and his son. In the assault one of the assailants himself was shot by the son. Two hours thereafter Joseph Hillstrom was found 2 1/2 miles from the place of the homicide suffering from a serious flesh gunshot wound through the chest, and applying to a doctor for medical aid. Later he was identified as one of the perpetrators of the crime, charged with first degree murder, tried, convicted, and sentenced to death. The respondent, as his chief counsel, prosecuted an appeal to this court. He principally contended that the evidence was insufficient to connect Hillstrom with the commission of the offense or to show motive, and complained of rulings of the trial court respecting spectacular performances of Hillstrom, who, on the trial, without notice or cause, in the presence of the jury and during the progress of the trial, summarily discharged counsel selected and employed by himself, demanded that he be permitted to conduct his own defense in person without counsel, and later consented that they might remain in the case. These matters, on a complete record of all the evidence and of all the proceedings in the cause, were reviewed by us on the appeal, which resulted in an affirmance of the judgment. State v. Hillstrom, 46 Utah 341, 150 P. 935. The opinion contains a statement of the facts, the assignments of error relied on, and our reasons for affirming the judgment. No petition for a rehearing was filed, nor was there any claim made before the court, or in any of the proceedings thereof, that the law was misapplied or that the facts were misconceived. On remittitur and resentence an application was made to the state board of pardons, consisting of the Governor, the Attorney General, and the three Justices of this court, for commutation of sentence. In that application Hillstrom was again represented by the respondent. As appears by the official report of that board, put in evidence in this proceeding, all of the stated grounds for commutation of the sentence were included in the assignments of error before the Supreme Court and there adjudged adversely to the respondent's contentions. Nevertheless, and as fully appears by the board's record, Hillstrom and his counsel were given every opportunity to again review the evidence and to present any new matter, or anything additional deemed by them beneficial to Hillstrom's cause. But nothing such was attempted or offered. The official report as to that reads:
The state proved beyond controversy that in the assault one of the perpetrators of the crime was himself shot in the store. When Hillstrom, two hours after the commission of the homicide, suffering from a fresh gun-shot wound, applied for medical aid, he stated to the physician that he was shot "in a quarrel over a woman, in which he was to blame as much as the other fellow, and wished the matter kept quiet." The State proved that statement to show his unsatisfactory or unreasonable explanation of his fresh gun-shot wound. No evidence whatever was given by him at the trial, or before the board of pardons, to show that his wound was received in such manner. Something, however, in argument was attempted to be made of this before the board of pardons, as showing Hillstrom's gallantry in protecting the honor of a woman. As to that the board, in its official report, states:
The report further recites:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
The State Board of Law Examiners v. Spriggs
...of the courts be maintained," and citing other authorities. The Utah Supreme Court in 1912, had this to say on the subject In Re Hilton, 48 Utah 172, 158 P. 691: as has been repeatedly held, liberty and freedom of speech under the Constitution do not mean the unrestrained right to do and sa......
-
De Krasner v. Boykin
...P. 413; Chreste v. Commonwealth, 171 Ky. 77, 186 S.W. 919, Ann.Cas.1918E, 122; State v. Edmunson, 103 Or. 243, 204 P. 619; In re Hilton, 48 Utah 172, 158 P. 691, Ann.Cas.1918A, 271; In re Bruen, 102 Wash. 472, P. 1152; Wernimont v. State, 101 Ark. 210, 142 S.W. 194, Ann.Cas.1913D, 1156; Peo......
-
In re Clifton
... ... Raynolds, 22 N.M. 1, 158 P. 413; In re Simpson, 9 N.D ... 379, 83 N.W. 541; 6 C. J. 581.) ... The ... court has such inherent power. (6 C. J. 580; People v ... Harris, 273 Ill. 413, 112 N.E. 978; Chreste v ... Commonwealth, 171 Ky. 77, 186 S.W. 919; In re ... Hilton, 48 Utah 172, Ann. Cas. 1918A, 271, 158 P. 691; ... People v. Irwin, 60 Colo. 177, 152 P. 905; Wernimont ... v. State, 101 Ark. 210, Ann. Cas. 1913B, 1156, 142 S.W. 194.) ... The ... court may exercise its power in such regard in cases of ... professional misconduct generally; which ... ...
-
In re Burton
... ... a necessary and inherent incident of such power, the right to ... disbar them for unworthy behavior, unprofessional conduct, or ... mortal turpitude, or moral unfitness ... [246 P. 200] ... independently of authority given by statute. In re ... Hilton , 48 Utah 172, 158 P. 691, Ann. Cas. 1918A, 271 ... [67 ... Utah 150] When we thus admit one as an attorney and ... counsellor at law and as a member of the bar of this court, ... and grant him a certificate or license and send him forth as ... qualified to practice law and as ... ...