State v. Zeimer, No. 9013
| Court | Supreme Court of Utah |
| Writing for the Court | McDONOUGH; CROCKETT, C. J., and WADE; HENRIOD; CALLISTER, J., concurs in the dissenting opinion of HENRIOD |
| Citation | 79 A.L.R.2d 821,10 Utah 2d 45,347 P.2d 1111 |
| Docket Number | No. 9013 |
| Decision Date | 05 January 1960 |
| Parties | d 45, 79 A.L.R.2d 821 STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Jack ZEIMER, Defendant and Appellant. |
Page 1111
v.
Jack ZEIMER, Defendant and Appellant.
Page 1112
[10 Utah 2d 46] A. Jerry Butler, Salt Lake City, for appellant.
Walter L. Budge, Atty. Gen., Vernon B. Romney, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
McDONOUGH, Justice.
From the granting of a new trial solely on the issue of whether he was an habitual criminal, and from the instructions to the jury on that issue, defendant appeals. Defendant contends that the court cannot grant a new trial solely on the issue of prior convictions because the jury which determines if a man is an habitual criminal must be the jury which finds him guilty of the joined offense. 1 He asserts that the instructions, connoting a criminal offense, are prejudicial error because 'habitual criminal' is not a crime, but only a status. 2
Zeimer was tried under an information alleging second degree burglary and alleging prior convictions and terms in state prisons. The jury found him guilty of the burglary charge, but the court declared a mistrial during the subsequent proceeding on the status of habitual criminal. The court ordered a new trial solely on the latter issue. The new trial was before a new jury and resulted in a verdict determining that Zeimer was an habitual criminal.
[10 Utah 2d 47] When a court determines that error was committed during the trial under an habitual criminal statute, a conflict of authorities is faced on the remedy to be followed. This courts agree that being an habitual criminal is not a crime. They divide over the question of whether the trial for habitual criminal must be tried by the same jury that tries the substantive offense and, if so, whether and how a new trial should be granted. To some extent, the division is explained by the difference in statutes and procedure. Four rules have developed.
(1) The court should order a dismissal of the part of the complaint alleging prior convictions. Perhaps this rule can be limited to cases wherein the court has given judgment upon the criminal offense. 3 The theory is that the status cannot be tried separately because it is not a crime. The decree of judgment, therefore, ends the jurisdiction of the court over the criminal complaint.
Page 1113
(2) The court should order a new trial of both the status and the alleged crime. 4 This order is usually given in jurisdictions which allow the state to present evidence of prior convictions in the same proceeding wherein the state presents evidence of guilt of the substantive crime. Apparently, this type order is not given in states which allow proof of status to be submitted only after the accused is found guilty of the substantive offense. Utah follows the latter procedure.
(3) The court should give the prosecuting attorney his choice: either accept a new trial on both status and substantive crime or accept a dismissal of the part of the complaint alleging prior convictions. 5 In these cases, the court accepts the validity of the argument that status cannot be tried separately because it is not a crime, but notes that no prejudicial error occurred during the trial of the substantive offense.
(4) The court should order a new trial limited to the question of status. 6 The theory is that the procedure should be premised upon the accused's right to a fair trial, but should not be designed to produce legal loopholes. Since, in these jurisdictions, the trial on status occurs only after the trial of the substantive offense, the effect of the prejudicial error is limited to an easily severed issue of fact. [10 Utah 2d 48] Therefore, the new trial can fairly be limited to the question of status.
Appellant contends that the court should choose among the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Johnson, No. 9186
...369 P.2d 187; Yates v. State, 245 Ala. 490, 17 So.2d 777; Beeler v. State, 206 Tenn. 160, 332 S.W.2d 203; State v. Zeimer, 10 Utah 2d 45, 347 P.2d 1111, 79 A.L.R.2d 821; State v. Ferrone, 96 Conn. 160, 113 A. 452; Kennedy v. State, 171 Neb. 160, 105 N.W.2d 710; Commonwealth v. Koczwara, 397......
-
Chavez v. State, No. 5119
...trial of status can possibly prejudice the trial on the substantive offense. * * * " (Footnotes omitted.) State v. Zeimer, 10 Utah 2d 45, 347 P.2d 1111, 1112-1113 (1960), 79 A.L.R.2d The power to prescribe punishment for acts prohibited belongs to the legislative branch of government. Soren......
-
State v. Dunn, No. 10003
...only with the status of an accused after he has been found guilty of the offense for which he is tried. State v. Zeimer, 10 Utah 2d 45, 347 P.2d 1111, 79 A.L.R.2d 821 (1960). State v. Johnson, 86 Idaho 51, 383 P.2d 326 (1963) points out that the persistent violator law does not create or de......
-
Board of Educ. of Granite School Dist. v. Salt Lake County, No. 17175
...as such previously in this and other jurisdictions. Herr v. Salt Lake County, Utah, 525 P.2d 728 (1974); State v. Zeimer, 10 Utah 2d 45, 347 P.2d 1111, 79 A.L.R.2d 821 (1960); Swift v. Smith, 119 Colo. 126, 201 P.2d 609 (1948). This Court assumes that the terms of a statute are used advised......
-
State v. Johnson, No. 9186
...369 P.2d 187; Yates v. State, 245 Ala. 490, 17 So.2d 777; Beeler v. State, 206 Tenn. 160, 332 S.W.2d 203; State v. Zeimer, 10 Utah 2d 45, 347 P.2d 1111, 79 A.L.R.2d 821; State v. Ferrone, 96 Conn. 160, 113 A. 452; Kennedy v. State, 171 Neb. 160, 105 N.W.2d 710; Commonwealth v. Koczwara, 397......
-
Chavez v. State, No. 5119
...trial of status can possibly prejudice the trial on the substantive offense. * * * " (Footnotes omitted.) State v. Zeimer, 10 Utah 2d 45, 347 P.2d 1111, 1112-1113 (1960), 79 A.L.R.2d The power to prescribe punishment for acts prohibited belongs to the legislative branch of government. Soren......
-
State v. Dunn, No. 10003
...only with the status of an accused after he has been found guilty of the offense for which he is tried. State v. Zeimer, 10 Utah 2d 45, 347 P.2d 1111, 79 A.L.R.2d 821 (1960). State v. Johnson, 86 Idaho 51, 383 P.2d 326 (1963) points out that the persistent violator law does not create or de......
-
Board of Educ. of Granite School Dist. v. Salt Lake County, No. 17175
...as such previously in this and other jurisdictions. Herr v. Salt Lake County, Utah, 525 P.2d 728 (1974); State v. Zeimer, 10 Utah 2d 45, 347 P.2d 1111, 79 A.L.R.2d 821 (1960); Swift v. Smith, 119 Colo. 126, 201 P.2d 609 (1948). This Court assumes that the terms of a statute are used advised......