State v. Jensen
Decision Date | 02 July 1929 |
Docket Number | 4791 |
Citation | 279 P. 506,74 Utah 299 |
Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Parties | STATE v. JENSEN |
Appeal from District Court, Sixth District, Sevier County; Nephi J Bates, Judge.
H. T Jensen was convicted of larceny, and he appeals.
REVERSED, and case remanded for a new trial.
Clarence Baird, of Salt Lake City, and Erickson & Erickson, of Richfield, for appellant.
George P. Parker, Atty. Gen., and Lawrence A. Miner, Asst. Atty Gen., for the State.
The defendant was convicted of the offense of larceny, and appeals. When arraigned on the information, he entered a plea of guilty. Up to that time he had not had the benefit of counsel and had not consulted an attorney. Later he consulted counsel, and upon such consultation his counsel on his behalf served and filed a motion to withdraw the plea of guilty and to substitute a plea of not guilty. The motion was supported by affidavit that the defendant was induced by the sheriff to enter a plea of guilty on the promise that sentence would be suspended. The court granted the motion and permitted the plea of guilty to be withdrawn, and a plea of not guilty to be substituted, whereupon the case was set for trial, which resulted in a verdict of guilty.
The state gave evidence to show that the defendant with two others stole several sets of harness, the subject of the charged larceny; that one set was sold by the defendant, another set by one of the accomplices, one set thrown in the river by the defendant, and inconsistent statements made by him as to the source of his possession. The defendant claimed and testified that he was told and believed that the harness belonged to one of the accomplices, that he at his request went with him to get the harness, sold one set at his request, believing the harness belonged to the accomplice, but later, learning that the accomplice was not the owner of the harness and had no right to take it, the defendant threw one set in the river.
The defendant lived in Salt Lake City. Among other things he testified that he received a letter from David Bird, one of the accomplices, living at Salina, where the offense was committed, requesting the defendant to come to Salina to get the harness which the defendant, as he testified, believed belonged to Bird, and that he later and after his arrest had a conversation with Bird in the presence of the sheriff respecting the letter. Thereupon the sheriff in rebuttal was called by the state and was asked by the prosecution:
Such ruling presents the principal question for review. The state in its brief puts the proposition thus:
The section of the statute referred to provides that:
"The court may at any time before judgment upon a plea of guilty permit it to be withdrawn and a plea of not guilty substituted."
There is a conflict in the authorities as to whether a withdrawn plea of guilty may be given in evidence against the accused. The question in a comparatively recent case, in 1926, was considered by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Kercheval v. U. S., 274 U.S. 220, 47 S.Ct. 582, 71 L.Ed. 1009. It was there held that by the weight of authority such evidence was inadmissible. In its opinion that court, through Mr. Justice Butler, said:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Gary
...v. Haycraft, 76 Ill.App.2d 149, 153-54, 221 N.E.2d 317 (1966); State v. Boone, 66 N.J. 38, 50, 327 A.2d 661 (1974); State v. Jensen, 74 Utah 299, 306, 279 P. 506 (1929). Other courts, however, hold expressly or implicitly that a determination whether the trial court should have granted a mi......
-
State v. Wright
...States, 274 U.S. 220, 47 S.Ct. 582, 71 L.Ed. 1009 (1927); State v. Anderson, 173 Minn. 293, 217 N.W. 351 (1927); and State v. Jensen, 74 Utah 299, 279 P. 506 (1929). ...
-
State v. Simonson, 16221
...as volunteered, non-responsive statements from a witness during trial--has been held to constitute error. In State v. Jensen, 74 Utah 299, 279 P. 506 (1929), the defendant pled guilty to larceny, was then allowed to withdraw his plea, and subsequently went to trial. After the defendant had ......
-
State v. Thomson
...208 Minn. 349, 294 N.W. 208; White v. State, 1874, 51 Ga. 285 (dictum); Green v. State, 1898, 40 Fla. 474, 24 So. 537; State v. Jensen, 1929, 74 Utah 299, 279 P. 506; State v. Meyers, 1889, 99 Mo. 107, 12 S.W. 516; State v. Abel, 1928, 320 Mo. 445, 8 S.W.2d 55. See, also, State v. Leaks, 19......