State v. Stone
| Decision Date | 13 January 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 10650,10650 |
| Citation | 422 P.2d 194,18 Utah 2d 289 |
| Parties | d 289 STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Connie O. STONE, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Sumner J. Hatch, Salt Lake City, for appellant.
Phil L. Hansen, Atty. Gen., Salt Lake City, for respondent.
Appeal from a conviction for appropriation of public moneys without authority of law while holding the office of City Recorder for Layton City. Affirmed.
Art. XIII, sec. 8 of the Utah Constitution provides that the making of profit or using public money by a public officer for any purpose unauthorized by law is a felony. Title 76--28--59, Utah Code Annotated 1953 provides that 'Every officer of this state, or of any county, city, town, precinct or district of this state, and every other person charged with the receipt, safekeeping, transfer or disbursement of public moneys who * * * (1) Without authority of law appropriates the same or any portion thereof to his own use, or to the use of another * * * is guilty of a felony.'
The latter statute no doubt is an implementation of the former Article XIII, sec. 8, supra.
There are correlative city ordinances which need not be canvassed here.
Defendant urges 1) That specifically a City Recorder is not one statutorily charged with the 'receipt, safekeeping, transfer or disbursement of public moneys'; 2) that therefore an instruction indicating that he is, was in error; and 3) that the trial court erred in admitting certain evidence.
Disposing of 3) first: Defendant says 'In at least 12 instances' the court 'admitted documentary evidence either with the comment that he reserved the right to reconsider unless the lack of foundation was rectified or the evidence connected up.' This is not very unusual in a five-day trial that built up a transcript of over 400 pages of testimony. Even so, the objector has the onus of calling to the attention of the trial court such admissions taken under advisement with reservations. 1 That burden was not sustained in any instance in this case. Furthermore, only three of such instances were mentioned with specific reference to where they could be found in the transcript. The three instances mentioned appeared to be standard operating procedure in a case like this. If the objector fails to preserve the record by insisting on calling attention to the reservation to rule on such objections, it is obvious that one easily could invite error by silence. We think this point on appeal, in this particular case, is without substantial merit.
As to 1) and 2): The Constitution and implementing statutes and ordinances impose sanctions clearly designed to protect against hypothecation of public moneys by public officials,--no matter how they glued onto the taxpayers' money. Clerks, Stenographers and the like well may not be public officials, but a City Recorder is. No matter how the latter obtained the funds, we think that the clear intent of the Constitution and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Tillman
...150, 151, 405 P.2d 793, 795 (1965); State v. Thompson, 110 Utah 113, 130-31, 170 P.2d 153, 162 (1946); see also State v. Stone, 18 Utah 2d 289, 291, 422 P.2d 194, 195 (1967) (if the objector fails to preserve the record by calling attention to objections, one could easily invite error by si......
-
State v. Dunn
...Inc. v. Jewkes, 701 P.2d 486, 489 (Utah 1984); State v. Fair, 28 Utah 2d 242, 244, 501 P.2d 107, 108 (1972); State v. Stone, 18 Utah 2d 289, 291, 422 P.2d 194, 195 (1967); State v. Gleason, 17 Utah 2d 150, 151, 405 P.2d 793, 794-95 (1965); State v. Thompson, 110 Utah 113, 130-31, 170 P.2d 1......
-
State v. Emmett
...to object to a ruling or order, the absence of an objection shall not thereafter prejudice him. (Emphasis added.) In State v. Stone, 18 Utah 2d 289, 422 P.2d 194 (1967), the appellant complained that the trial court had admitted documentary evidence reserving the right to reconsider unless ......
-
State v. McNeil
...to preserve the record" by making an evidentiary objection, "it is obvious that one easily could invite error by silence." 18 Utah 2d 289, 422 P.2d 194, 195 (1967). To the extent that these cases contradict our holding that counsel does not invite error through mere silence, we overrule the......