People of Territory of Utah v. Berlin, 449

CourtSupreme Court of Utah
Writing for the CourtMERRITT, C. J.:
Citation36 P. 199,10 Utah 39
PartiesTHE PEOPLE OF THE TERRITORY OF UTAH, RESPONDENT, v. NELLIE BERLIN, APPELLANT
Docket Number449
Decision Date23 March 1894

36 P. 199

10 Utah 39

THE PEOPLE OF THE TERRITORY OF UTAH, RESPONDENT,
v.

NELLIE BERLIN, APPELLANT

No. 449

Supreme Court of Utah

March 23, 1894


On rehearing. Granted. The former decision of this court reversed, and the cause remanded to the court below for a new trial. For the former opinion of this court, per Zane, C. J. (Smith, J., dissenting), see 9 Utah 383. (35 P. 498.)

Reversed and remanded.

Messrs. Lessinger & Beckwith, for the appellant.

Mr. W. L. Maginnis, Assistant U. S. Attorney, for respondent.

MERRITT, C. J. SMITH, J., concurring. BARTCH, J., dissenting.

OPINION

[10 Utah 40] MERRITT, C. J.:

In this cause, an opinion affirming the judgment of the district court was rendered by the late Chief Justice Zane, concurred in by Mr. Justice Bartch, on January 23d of the present year. On January 29th, a dissenting opinion was filed by Mr. Justice Smith. A petition for a rehearing was filed by the appellant, Berlin, which, by the court, was referred to me, who had succeeded Chief Justice Zane. The cause was originally submitted without oral argument, and the district attorney has asked that the matter be finally disposed of on the petition for rehearing. Owing to the peculiar character of the case, and the fact that conflicting opinions have already been filed, I have carefully examined the question presented by the appeal. The whole controversy arises upon the instructions given to the jury. I am fully convinced that the instructions may have misled the jury. The charge was certainly conflicting, as shown in the opinion of Mr. Justice Smith. The great weight of authority is to the effect that, where the charge is conflicting and is erroneous in a material part, the judgment must be reversed. In addition to the authorities to sustain this in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Smith, I find that no court has gone further than our own. In the case of People v. Hancock, 7 Utah 170, 25 P. 1093, this court, speaking by Justice Miner, says: "Where conflicting charges are given, one of which is [10 Utah 41] erroneous, it is to be presumed that the jury may have followed that which is erroneous." An examination of that case will show that the conflict there under consideration was in the charge relative to the character of the defendant, and not in relation to the circumstances of the charge against the defendant at all; and yet that case was reversed on account of this conflict. I am of the opinion that a rehearing should be granted, and the decision should be reversed, and the case remanded for a new trial. It is therefore ordered that the former judgment of this court be set aside, and that the judgment of the district court be reversed, and the cause remanded to the court below for a new trial.

SMITH, J. I concur in opinion and order.

DISSENT BY: BARTCH

BARTCH, J. (dissenting):

I do not agree with the majority opinion, overruling the [36 P. 200] former decision of this court, on the petition for a rehearing. It is evident, upon an examination of the case, and of the authorities controlling it, that the record presents no case for reversal. The only material question to be considered is whether an exception to an entire charge is sufficient to present a case for review on appeal. It appears to me that the opinion of Chief Justice Merritt proceeds in disregard to the old and well-established rules under which appellate courts will review the instructions of trial courts. No particular sentence or passage or portion of the charge was excepted to. Nor does the record show that any exception was taken to it on the ground of being misleading or conflicting. Nor was the trial court's attention called to any error or misstatement or omission, or supposed error or misstatement or omission, which the defendant claims to be objectionable. In total disregard of fairness to the trial court, the defendant, as appears [10 Utah 42] from the record, calls attention to objectionable matter in the charge, for the first time, in the appellate court. Nor is it fair to the appellate court that it should search through an entire charge to ascertain some error, real or supposed, to which the attention of the trial court has never been directed. The exception reads as follows: "We except to each and every one of the instructions given by the court to the jury." This is simply a general exception, which should avail the party nothing, unless the whole charge is wrong. I understand the rule to be that, where a portion of the charge of the court is correct, a general exception to the entire charge will present no question for review on appeal, and that an exception, to be of avail in an appellate court, should be strictly confined to the specific matter which is the subject of the complaint, and the judge's attention called thereto, so that an opportunity may be afforded him to make a correction.

In this case no portion of the charge appears to be objectionable, even to the defendant, except that quoted in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Smith. 35 P. 498. In reading the portion therein quoted, however, the word "this" before the words "fraud, deceit, or trickery" should be eliminated, as it changes the meaning of the sentence, and was not a part of the charge as shown by the record; and the words "when established" should be inserted after the word "facts," and before "are sufficient." Whatever of technical criticism may be applicable to the portion thus quoted, it can hardly be successfully contended that the court, in the remaining passages of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 practice notes
  • Robinson v. State, 609
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • January 10, 1910
    ...clauses is erroneous it is presumed that the jury follows the erroneous charge. (State v. Ferguson, 9 Nev. 105; People v. Berlin, 10 Utah 39.) It was error for the court to refuse the application for a continuance. Assistance of counsel for all persons accused of crime is a constitutional r......
  • Beaman v. Martha Washington Min. Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Utah
    • January 7, 1901
    ...v. Brixen, 7 Utah 454, 27 P. 578; People v. Hart, 10 Utah 204, 37 P. 330; Ruffatti v. Min. Co., 10 Utah 386, 37 P. 591; People v. Berlin, 10 Utah 39, 36 P. 199; Scoville v. Salt Lake City, 11 Utah 60, 39 P. 481; Lowe v. Salt Lake City, 13 Utah 91, 44 P. 1050; Wilson v. Mining Co., 16 Utah 3......
  • Olson v. Oregon Short Line Railroad Co., 1352
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Utah
    • March 26, 1902
    ...nullifying the first, the judgment will be reversed. Thompson on Trials, sec. 2326; People v. Hancock, 7 Utah 170; People v. Berlin, 10 Utah 39; People v. Campbell, 30 Cal. 312; Brown v. McAllister, 39 Cal. 573-577; People v. Anderson, 44 Cal. 65; Chidester v. Con. P. Ditch Co., 53 Cal. 56;......
  • People of Territory of Utah v. Hart, 510
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Utah
    • June 19, 1894
    ...v. U. S., 150 U.S. 442, 14 S.Ct. 144, 37 L.Ed. 1137; Carver v. Jackson, 4 Pet. 1; Ex parte Crane, 5 Pet. 190; People v. Berlin (Utah), 10 Utah 39, 36 P. 199; Society v. Faulkner, 91 U.S. 415, 23 L.Ed. 283. Section 5091, Comp. Laws 1888, is the same as section 1176 of the California Penal Co......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 cases
  • Robinson v. State, 609
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • January 10, 1910
    ...clauses is erroneous it is presumed that the jury follows the erroneous charge. (State v. Ferguson, 9 Nev. 105; People v. Berlin, 10 Utah 39.) It was error for the court to refuse the application for a continuance. Assistance of counsel for all persons accused of crime is a constitutional r......
  • Beaman v. Martha Washington Min. Co.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Utah
    • January 7, 1901
    ...v. Brixen, 7 Utah 454, 27 P. 578; People v. Hart, 10 Utah 204, 37 P. 330; Ruffatti v. Min. Co., 10 Utah 386, 37 P. 591; People v. Berlin, 10 Utah 39, 36 P. 199; Scoville v. Salt Lake City, 11 Utah 60, 39 P. 481; Lowe v. Salt Lake City, 13 Utah 91, 44 P. 1050; Wilson v. Mining Co., 16 Utah 3......
  • Olson v. Oregon Short Line Railroad Co., 1352
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Utah
    • March 26, 1902
    ...nullifying the first, the judgment will be reversed. Thompson on Trials, sec. 2326; People v. Hancock, 7 Utah 170; People v. Berlin, 10 Utah 39; People v. Campbell, 30 Cal. 312; Brown v. McAllister, 39 Cal. 573-577; People v. Anderson, 44 Cal. 65; Chidester v. Con. P. Ditch Co., 53 Cal. 56;......
  • People of Territory of Utah v. Hart, 510
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Utah
    • June 19, 1894
    ...v. U. S., 150 U.S. 442, 14 S.Ct. 144, 37 L.Ed. 1137; Carver v. Jackson, 4 Pet. 1; Ex parte Crane, 5 Pet. 190; People v. Berlin (Utah), 10 Utah 39, 36 P. 199; Society v. Faulkner, 91 U.S. 415, 23 L.Ed. 283. Section 5091, Comp. Laws 1888, is the same as section 1176 of the California Penal Co......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT