holding that the murder of three individuals within close proximity of two survivors weighed in favor of applying the aggravator
How later courts described this case
- holding that the murder of three individuals within close proximity of two survivors weighed in favor of applying the aggravator
- discussing whether the events occurred in a "brief span of time" such that they formed a "concatenating series of events"
- the two surviving victims were actually shot by the defendant just seconds apart from the murders, and the aggravator applied
- upholding earlier version of Utah's death penalty statute because it limited death to only "extreme and unusually serious and shocking crimes"
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CROCKETT, Justice
(concurring with comments):
In addition to what is said about the charged errors, they impress me as no more than the usual and to be expected attempts to claim error on every possible pretext. I think it particularly applicable here to state that the declared policy of our law is that it should not be obstructed by unsubstantial technicalities; but in the interest in being practical and effective in getting to truth and justice, U.C.A.1953, Sec. 77-42-1 provides:
Judgment to disregard errors not affecting rights of parties: After hearing an appeal the court must give judgment without regard to errors or defects which do not affect the substantial rights of the parties. If error has been committed, it shall not be presumed to have resulted in prejudice. The court must be satisfied that it has that effect before it is warranted in reversing the judgment.
The decisions of this Court have consistently declared to the same effect. See e. g. State v. Neal, 1 Utah 2d 122 , 262 P.2d 756 ; State v. Sinclair, 15 Utah 2d 162 , 389 P.2d 465 .
This same principle is also reflected in the sound and well recognized rule that when the evidence of guilt is so clear that the reviewing court concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that there is no likelihood that in the absence of the claimed errors there would have been a different result, any such error should be regarded as non-prejudicial and the conviction should not be reversed. See Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 ; Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250 , 89 S.Ct. 1726 , 23 L.Ed.2d 284 , cited in State v. Scandrett, 24 Utah 2d *1357 202 , 468 P.2d 639 (1970); also see State v. Carpenter, 215 Kan. 573 , 527 P.2d 1333 (1974); The application of the above-stated rulings to this appeal and to the unspeakably horrendous scenario of crime here involved needs no further exposition.