State v. Spencer, 12182
| Decision Date | 23 May 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 12182,12182 |
| Citation | 28 Utah 2d 12,497 P.2d 636 |
| Parties | d 12 The STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Kenneth Woodrow SPENCER, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
F. John Hill, of Salt Lake Legal Defender Assn., Salt Lake City, for defendant-appellant.
Vernon B. Romney, Atty. Gen., David S. Young, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salt Lake City, for plaintiff-respondent.
The defendant was indicted for the crime of robbery in Salt Lake County and after a trial was had the jury returned a verdict of guilty. The court below sentenced the defendant to a term in the Utah State Prison. From the conviction and sentence the defendant has appealed to this court.
On September 24, 1971, Joseph Eskelson was robbed at approximately 3:30 a.m. Eskelson testified that during the robbery he made a careful observation of the robber and thereafter he was put in a back room of the service station where the robbery occurred. In the back room and before he called the police, Eskalson wrote down a description of the robber. The record indicates that at the time of the robbery the defendant was suffering from a gunshot wound to his upper right arm and that the wound was covered by a large bandage. Eskelson testified that he did not see the bandage nor the wound nor anything out of the ordinary with respect to the assailant's arm. Sometime after the robbery, Eskelson attended a line-up and identified the defendant as the man who had committed the robbery.
The defendant called witnesses to support his defense of an alibi. The evidence adduced for that purpose would indicate that the defendant could ot have been at the scene of the robbery at the time it was committed. However, it would appear that the jury were not impressed by the defendant's claim that he was elsewhere at the time of the crime.
Defendant urges that this court adopt a rule to the effect that where the identification of a defendant is established by the testimony of one witness alone corroboration should be required to connect the defendant with the offense. While the legislature has seen fit to require corroboration in dealing with abortion 1 and accomplices by requiring corroboration, 2 we do not deem it advisable by court decision or rule to extend that principle to eyewitness identification.
The defendant further claims that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that they had the right to disagree and that they were not called upon to surrender their honest...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hansen v. Owens, 16977
...prohibited. The result is likely to create chaos in this important area of the law. Moreover, it is inconsistent with State v. Spencer, 28 Utah 2d 12, 497 P.2d 636 (1972), in which this Court held that the privilege was not violated by requiring an accused to appear in a The Utah constituti......
-
People v. Rogers
...so that his voice could be recorded for identification purposes did not violate privilege against self-incrimination); State v. Spencer, 28 Utah 2d 12, 497 P.2d 636 (defendant compelled to participate in lineup and to repeat certain words--did not deprive him of Fifth Amendment right to rem......
-
American Fork City v. Crosgrove, 19174
...self-incrimination does not apply to appearances in and speaking at a lineup--arguably affirmative acts. State v. Spencer, 28 Utah 2d 12, 497 P.2d 636 Significantly, Georgia, the only jurisdiction to follow the affirmative act standard, has shown signs of retreating from that standard in re......
-
State v. Sessions
...lewdness. It is not error to refuse a proposed instruction if the point is properly covered in the other instructions. State v. Spencer, 28 Utah 2d 12, 497 P.2d 636 (1972); State v. Miller, 24 Utah 2d 1, 464 P.2d 844 (1970); State v. Martinez, 21 Utah 2d 187, 442 P.2d 943 Affirmed. HALL, C.......