State v. Langley, 11911
| Decision Date | 25 September 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 11911,11911 |
| Citation | 474 P.2d 737,25 Utah 2d 29 |
| Parties | d 29 STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. William Arnold LANGLEY and James Kanath Holman, Defendants and Appellants. |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
William Arnold Langley, pro se.
Vernon B. Romney, Atty. Gen., Lauren N. Beasley, Asst. Gen., Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and respondent.
Appeal from a robbery conviction. Affirmed.
Competent, substantial and admissible evidence that a jury well could have believed, accurately may be abstracted as follows:
A Mr. Love, jeweler, after waiting on a customer, was asked by defendant, Holman, to see a watch band. As he reached for one, Holman (independently identified more than once by Love and a Mr. Horne), ordered the latter, at gunpoint, to get down behind the counter, where Holman unlovingly taped over Love's eyes. Love heard someone else enter the place and put jewelry in a paper sack. A regular customer entered at that juncture, and defendant, Langley (also independently identified by the customer), acting as a clerk, conveniently advised her to go to another nearby store. A Mrs. Taylor then entered the store, and a man quickly brushed by her while leaving the store. This man independently was identified as Langley by a man seated in a parked car in front of the store, as was defendant Holman, who had immediately following Langley. Mrs. Taylor's later attempt to identify anyone was fuzzy enough to lack any substantial probative value. Horne's and Love's identifications of the defendants were not only on-the-scene observations, but by the examination of protos, attending a line-up, and in-court identifications.
Defendants urge 1) that the identification evidence was prejudicial,--but the record fails to support the contention; 1 2) that they were convicted by an eight-man jury, which is unconstitutional,--a contention already disposed of by our own state constitution, which principle recently was affirmed; 2 3) that the court failed to instruct on their theory of the case--not well taken, because there was no substantial evidence to support it; 3 4) that defendants were denied a fair trial because the prosecution knowingly used perjured testimony,--an urgence quite unconvincing, since the record reflects no such tactic, and no perjury was established--only suggested by defendants; 5) that they were prejudiced because they were not given separate trials,--a contention which is not warranted by anything in the record, where no such unfairness or prejudice is apparent.
Defendants' further complaint 6) that they were prejudiced because they promptly were not furnished with a transcript of the record at time of preliminary hearing and thus were frustrated, is captious; 4 and we find no prejudice or unfairness in the record as to 7) defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Whistnant
...State v. Grimes, 90 S.D. 43, 237 N.W.2d 900, 904 (1976); Ruiz v. State, 523 S.W.2d 691, 695 (Tex.Crim.App.1975); State v. Langley, 25 Utah 2d 29, 474 P.2d 737 (1970); Chittum v. Commonwealth, 211 Va. 12, 17, 174 S.E.2d 779 (1970); State v. Livengood, 14 Wash.App. 203, 206, 540 P.2d 480 (197......
-
State v. Arroyo
...v. Christensen, 61 Ill.App.3d 856, 19 Ill.Dec. 111, 378 N.E.2d 612; State v. Melchior, 56 Ohio St.2d 15, 381 N.E.2d 195; State v. Langley, 25 Utah 2d 29, 474 P.2d 737. If we consider the evidence in a light most favorable to supporting the defendant's request to charge, the following facts ......
-
State v. Villiard
...P. 962 (1930).3 See footnote 2; State v. Mitchell, 3 Utah 2d 70, 278 P.2d 618 (1955), and cases therein cited; also State v. Langley, 25 Utah 2d 29, 474 P.2d 737 (1970); State v. Castillo, 23 Utah 2d 70, 457 P.2d 618 (1969).4 In several instructions the court instructed that to convict, the......