State v. Endsley

• Decision Date: 17 May 1899
• Citation: 57 P. 430,19 Utah 478
• Court: Utah Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE OF UTAH, RESPONDENT, v. A. H. ENDSLEY, APPELLANT

57 P. 430

19 Utah 478

STATE OF UTAH, RESPONDENT, v. A. H. ENDSLEY, APPELLANT

Supreme Court of Utah

May 17, 1899

Appeal, from the Seventh District Court, San Juan County Hon. Jacob Johnson, Judge.

Defendant was prosecuted and convicted of the offense of grand larceny and insists that the trial court erred in refusing to discharge him upon motion made for that purpose and based on the ground that the case was not tried at the next term after filing the information as required by Sec. 5065, R. S. 1898.

Judgment affirmed.

L. R. Rhodes, Esq., for appellant.

Hon. A. C. Bishop, Attorney-General, and William A. Lee, Deputy Attorney-General, for respondent.

BARTCH, C. J. MINER, J., and BASKIN, J., concur.

OPINION

BARTCH, C. J.

The defendant in this case was prosecuted for and convicted of the offense of grand larceny. On this appeal, it is insisted that the court erred in refusing to discharge the accused upon motion made for that purpose, and based on the ground that the case was not tried at the next term after filing the information, as required by Sec. 5065, R. S., which provides:

"The court, unless good cause to the contrary is shown, must order the prosecution to be dismissed in the following cases:

"1. When a person has been held to answer for a public offense, if an information is not filed nor an indictment found against him at the next term of the court at which he is held to answer.

"2. If a defendant whose trial has not been postponed upon his application, is not brought to trial at the next term of the court in which the information or indictment is triable, after it is filed or found."

Doubtless by this statute the Legislature intended to secure to every defendant, in a criminal prosecution, a speedy trial, in the absence of good cause being shown for delay; and in a case where the accused himself makes no application for a postponement, and the prosecution fails to proceed to trial at the next term "in which the information or indictment is triable, after it has been filed or found," without showing good cause for such failure, it will be the duty of the court, on motion of the defendant, to discharge him. But to entitle a defendant, to favorable action upon his motion it is without doubt, incumbent upon him to show that his case falls within the terms of the statute. Has the defendant in the case at bar shown this? We are apprehensive that he has not. While it is not stated in the abstract that the information, which resulted...