State v. Abbott
| Decision Date | 24 September 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 10989,10989 |
| Citation | 445 P.2d 142,21 Utah 2d 307 |
| Parties | d 307 The STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Jack Henry ABBOTT, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Jack Henry Abbott, pro se, Robert B. Hansen, Salt Lake City, for defendant and appellant.
Phil L. Hansen, Atty. Gen., Gerald G. Gundry, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and respondent.
Appeal from a conviction of assault with a deadly weapon by one convict on another by means of a knife. Affirmed.
Appellant was represented by the Public Defender throughout the trial. At the trial he asked the court to dismiss his counsel, claiming the former's incompetence, all of which is not supported by the record, including the contention that his counsel was not successful in his motion for a mistrial because the appellant, an inmate of the state prison, was brought into court in prison garb. Appellant urges that the trial court was arbitrary and implies that the latter was unfair, if not also incompetent. Further, he accuses the district attorney of bias and prejudice. Thereafter, on appeal, this court, at appellant's request, appointed a very competent member of the Bar to pursue this appeal, who, apparently at his own expense, prepared and filed what we consider a highly commendable, scholarly document. This document and his counsel's efforts appellant considered substandard and incompetent. He then requested permission of this court to file a typewritten brief pro se on usually unacceptable paper and of different size, all of which were abortive of the rules. He was granted this permission, nonetheless, and filed a handwritten brief, which appears to have been penned by someone else,--not by him.
With this background of accusation and insinuation, appellant ties his thesis to Miranda v. State of Arizona. 1 Even the controversial principles therein espoused,--quite offensive to a large segment of Bench and Bar and law enforcement agencies, seem inapplicable here.
The appellant concedes that he stabbed the other inmate when in his protracted brief, he included significantly that 'The alleged victim, James Christenson, did not pass away until three weeks after appellant stabbed him.' Also, it is significant that the only basis that could justify this fact statement would be an assignment of error on appeal to the effect that the evidence failed to support the jury's verdict and disregarded any claim of self-defense. Such urgency was not made...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Whitfield v. State
...65 Cal.2d 814, 56 Cal.Rptr. 648, 423 P.2d 800 (1967); State v. Archible, 25 N.C.App. 95, 212 S.E.2d 44 (1975); State v. Abbott, 21 Utah 2d 307, 445 P.2d 142 (1968); State v. Persinger, 72 Wash.2d 561, 433 P.2d 867 (1967), Cert. denied, 393 U.S. 864, 89 S.Ct. 147, 21 L.Ed.2d 133 (1968); Stat......
-
Whitfield v. State, 793
...by guard); State v. Archible, 25 N.C.App. 95, 212 S.E.2d 44 (1975) (interrogation of prison guard held non-custodial); State v. Abbott, 21 Utah 2d 307, 445 P.2d 142 (1968) (interrogation immediately after stabbing to find owner of knife); State v. Persinger, 72 Wash.2d 561, 433 P.2d 867 (19......
-
Salt Lake City v. Carner
...give the "Miranda" warning to everyone of whom he asks a question. Id. 25 Utah 2d at 308, 480 P.2d 737. Similarly, in State v. Abbott, 21 Utah 2d 307, 445 P.2d 142 (1968), we held that a prisoner was not entitled to a Miranda warning prior to his engaging in a very short dialogue with the c......
-
State v. Graves
...P.2d 242, defendant voluntarily appeared at police station where he gave a statement prior to being placed in custody; State v. Abbott, 1968, 21 Utah 2d 307, 445 P.2d 142, defendant convict asked about ownership of knife used to kill ...