indicating that those found in possession of LSD were similarly situated with regard to two statutes providing different penalties for the same conduct
How later courts described this case
- indicating that those found in possession of LSD were similarly situated with regard to two statutes providing different penalties for the same conduct
- holding when two statutes proscribe same criminal conduct, lesser of two punishments should be imposed
- prosecutor does not have unfettered authority to select the statute having a harsher penalty if two statutes contain identical elements of a crime
- "[Where there is doubt or uncertainty as to which of two punishments is applicable to an offense an accused is entitled to the benefit of the lesser."
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
HENRIOD, Justice
(dissenting).
I dissent. Í would be constrained to concur except for the statement in the main ■opinion that “where there is- doubt or uncertainty as to which of two punishments' is applicable to an offense an accused is en-, titled to the benefit of the lesser.” I believe that the .quoted statement should ' be the law, and is the law in at least a great majority of the states other than Utah. In saying this I refer to State v. Twitchell, 8 Utah 2d 314 , 333 P.2d 1075 (1959)' in which the author of the instant opinion concurred.' It seems to me that Twitchell flies in the teeth of the instant case, and unless over-' ruled, should be controlling here. It seems to me that the Twitchell case supports the conclusion arrived -at in Mr. Justice -El-lett’s dissent.