State v. Haston
| Decision Date | 15 January 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 910266,910266 |
| Citation | 846 P.2d 1276 |
| Parties | STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Robert T. HASTON, Defendant and Petitioner. |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
R. Paul Van Dam, David B. Thompson, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and respondent.
Lisa J. Remal, Ronald S. Fujino, Salt Lake City, for defendant and petitioner.
On Certiorari to the Utah Court of Appeals
Defendant was convicted, by a jury, of attempted second degree murder. 1 He appealed, and we poured the case over to the Utah Court of Appeals, which affirmed the conviction. See State v. Haston, 811 P.2d 929 (Utah Ct.App.1991).
This court granted certiorari to consider a single issue that the court of appeals did not address, namely, whether defendant could be prosecuted for attempted second degree murder under the "depraved indifference" language of Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-203(1)(c).
Recently, in State v. Vigil, 842 P.2d 843 (Utah 1992), this court held that Utah does not recognize the crime of attempted depraved indifference homicide. That case is controlling here. Since the jury was allowed to consider the depraved indifference alternative, as well as those states of mind described in subsections (a) and (b) of section 76-5-203(1), defendant is entitled to a new trial.
The State argues in its brief that defendant cannot raise the issue of the logical impossibility of this crime for the first time before this court on certiorari. The State contends that defendant did not raise the issue before the trial court nor sufficiently identify the issue before the court of appeals and neither the trial court nor the court of appeals has had a chance to rule on the issue. However, other considerations lead us to conclude that failing to consider defendant's issue would constitute manifest injustice, and therefore, we granted certiorari.
First, defendant did raise the issue in a footnote in his main brief before the court of appeals, and he there challenged the jury instruction given on depraved indifference. In addition, subsequent to the filing of his main brief, defendant requested that the court of appeals consider whether a crime described as "attempted depraved indifference homicide" is recognized in Utah. His motions were denied, as was his petition for rehearing, which squarely raised the issue.
Second, defendant may presently be incarcerated for a crime which is not recognized in Utah. Under such circumstances, failure to consider defendant's assigned error merely because he was tardy or inartful in raising the issue previously strikes us as manifestly unjust. We believe that at the very least, such action would deny defendant due process, as guaranteed under our...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Davis
...In support of his claim, Davis relies on one Utah case, State v. Haston ( Haston I ), 811 P.2d 929 (Utah Ct.App.1991), rev'd,846 P.2d 1276 (Utah 1993) (per curiam). In that opinion, we affirmed the defendant's conviction and held that there was no reasonable likelihood that the jurors were ......
-
State v. Johnson
...the sole purpose of remanding to allow the defendant to file a motion to withdraw his guilty plea in the district court. Id. ¶33 In State v. Haston, we recognized a rare procedural anomaly when controlling precedent is issued that abolishes the offense for which the defendant was convicted ......
-
L.E.S. v. C.D.M. (In re K.A.S.)
...J., concurring) (alteration in original) (citing State v. Lopez, 873 P.2d 1127, 1134 n.2 (Utah 1994) ; see also State v. Haston, 846 P.2d 1276 (Utah 1993) (per curiam)). This may be a wise limitation. But we have never clearly articulated it—and certainly have never limited the exceptional ......
-
State v. Johnson
...precedent is issued that abolishes the offense for which the defendant was convicted while the defendant’s appeal is pending. 846 P.2d 1276 (Utah 1993). Thus, a rare procedural anomaly exists "where a change in law or the settled interpretation of law color[s] the failure to have raised an ......