State v. Kranendonk
Decision Date | 12 March 1932 |
Docket Number | 5196 |
Citation | 79 Utah 239,9 P.2d 176 |
Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Parties | STATE v. KRANENDONK |
Appeal from District Court, Second District, Weber County; Geo. S Barker, Judge.
Bastardy proceeding by the State against John Kranendonk. From judgment against defendant, and from order committing him to jail, defendant appeals.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED, and order of commitment vacated.
W. R Jones and Geo. C. Buckle, both of Ogden, for appellant.
Geo. P Parker, Atty. Gen., and L. A. Miner, Deputy Atty. Gen., for the State.
CHERRY, C. J., being absent, did not participate.
The defendant was prosecuted for bastardy, and after a trial by jury was found guilty of being the father of a child born of Hazel Swenson, as alleged in the information. The proceedings had during the trial, including the court's rulings on the evidence offered and the court's instructions to the jury, are not included in the bill of exceptions.
Before sentence was pronounced the defendant filed his motion in arrest of judgment and also filed a motion for a new trial, which motions were by the court denied, and the court pronounced judgment against the defendant, requiring him to pay to the clerk of said court the sum of $ 200 during 1931 and the sum of $ 150 each year thereafter for a period of seventeen years for the use and benefit of said child, and further ordered the defendant to file an undertaking in the sum of $ 800 with two good and sufficient sureties for the faithful performance of the terms and conditions of the judgment.
Thereafter, on the 25th day of May, 1931, the court entered an order committing the defendant to the county jail of Weber county, Utah.
The defendant's brief presents three assignments of error: First, that the court erred in overruling defendant's motion in arrest of judgment; second, that the court erred in overruling the defendant's motion for a new trial; third, that the court erred in its order of commitment.
Defendant's motion in arrest of judgment was made upon the grounds first, that the information does not state facts sufficient to constitute a public offense; second, that the information is uncertain, ambiguous, and unintelligible in failing to allege specifically the time or place of the alleged act of sexual intercourse. Defendant did not demur to the information, but alleges in his brief that objection was made to the introduction of any testimony upon the grounds set forth in the motion in arrest of judgment, and further alleges that he moved for a directed verdict upon the same grounds.
If error was committed by the court in admitting testimony over defendant's objection, defendant should have excepted to the court's ruling and assigned the ruling as error. If the court erred in refusing to direct a verdict for defendant, that error should have been assigned. Having failed to assign the court's ruling as error and having failed to assign the refusal of the court to direct the jury as requested, the error, if any was committed, is not now before this court. Perrin v. Union Pac. R. Co., 59 Utah 1, 201 P. 405. The assignment of error is the foundation upon which rests the right of the court to review any matter.
Defendant concedes that a bastardy proceeding is civil and not criminal, as far as the required proof is concerned, but contends that the pleadings and prosecution are conducted as in a criminal case, and for that reason he is entitled to the benefit of the motion in arrest of judgment. The question as to whether or not a defendant in such a proceeding may have the benefit of the statute providing for arrest of judgment (Comp. Laws Utah 1917, § 9035) has not been specifically passed on, but no good reason appears for departing from the rules applicable in other civil cases, nor is any authority therefor suggested. If, however, the motion in arrest of judgment were proper in such a case, we are of the opinion that no error was committed in its denial. Defendant has failed to point out wherein the information does not state facts sufficient to constitute a public offense except that the time and place of the alleged act of sexual intercourse is not alleged with particularity. The information does allege that the prosecutrix was, on the 31st day of January, 1931, and in the county of Weber, delivered of a child of which defendant is the father, he having prior thereto committed an act of sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix as a result of which she became pregnant. The information cannot be questioned because it failed to allege specifically when and where the act occurred. If defendant desired to be more particularly informed, he should have interposed a proper pleading. We are therefore of the opinion that the information does allege facts sufficient to constitute a public offense.
Defendant's second assignment of error is the overruling of his motion for a new trial. The motion was made upon the grounds that the court misdirected the jury upon questions of law and erred in its decision on questions acts in the case were prejudicial to the substantial of law during the course of the trial, which ruling and acts in the case were prejudicial to the substantial rights of the defendant, and that the verdict is contrary to the law and the evidence. We have observed that the transcript of the proceedings at the trial are not included in the bill of exceptions, and in the absence of the record of the testimony and the court's rulings on the admission of evidence, this court has nothing to review. No exception is shown to have been taken to the testimony received, and no error is assigned against the receipt of evidence or the court's instructions to the jury. We are therefore of the opinion that the defendant's assignment of error upon this ground is not well taken.
Defendant's last assignment of error is directed against the order of commitment, the material part of which reads:
The transcript contains the examination of the defendant as to his ability to comply with the judgment. The following testimony is all that was presented on that hearing:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Acker v. Adamson
...on habeas corpus.’ Ex parte Sedillo, 34 NM 98, 278 P. 202. This doctrine is supported by the weight of authority. State v. Kranendonk, supra [79 Utah 239, 9 P2d 176]; Hemby v. State, supra [188 Ark. 586, 67 SW2d 182] ; Holcomb v. Holcomb, 53 Wash. 611, 102 P. 653; Snook v. Snook, 110 Wash. ......
-
Acker v. Adamson
... ... commenced these present proceedings in habeas corpus directed ... against the sheriff and state's attorney of Minnehaha ... County. Hearing was had before the circuit court and the ... court found that the said Acker was unable to comply with ... N.M. 98, 278 P. 202. This doctrine is supported by the weight ... of authority. State v. Kranendonk, supra [79 Utah ... 239, 9 P.2d 176]; Hemby v. State, supra [188 Ark ... 586, 67 S.W.2d 182]; Holcomb v. Holcomb, 53 Wash ... 611, 102 P. 653; ... ...
-
Dalton v. Stout
... ... "The assignment of error ... [48 P.2d 426] ... is the foundation upon which rests the right of the court to ... review any matter." State v ... Kranendonk, 79 Utah 239, 9 P.2d 176, 177; ... Perrin v. Union Pac. R. Co., 59 Utah 1, 201 ... P. 405; Sterling Furn. Co. v. Tobias, 85 ... ...
-
State v. Bartholomew
...cases. It has been held by this court that a bastardy proceeding is in the nature of a civil, rather than a criminal, proceeding. State v. Kranendonk, supra. We are of opinion that a contempt proceeding arising out of a failure to comply with the judgment of the court in such proceeding, as......