holding no prejudice when some jurors had expressed opinion before trial that defendant was guilty, noting that “after the trial judge had questioned them carefully, each unequivocally stated that he or she would set aside preconceived notions ... and decide the case on the evidence presented at trial.”
How later courts described this case
- holding no prejudice when some jurors had expressed opinion before trial that defendant was guilty, noting that “after the trial judge had questioned them carefully, each unequivocally stated that he or she would set aside preconceived notions ... and decide the case on the evidence presented at trial.”
- determining that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting gruesome photographs of the victims' corpses where they "convey[ed] little information beyond the fact that the victims died violent and bloody deaths" but nevertheless upholding the conviction because the error was not prejudicial
- stating the trial court has the “ ‘serious and weighty responsibility’ ” of ensuring a criminal defendant has waived his constitutionally guaranteed right to assistance of counsel (quoting Westbrook v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 150, 150, 86 S.Ct. 1320, 16 L.Ed.2d 429 (1966))
- holding that crime scene photographs that showed a baby with a gaping neck wound repositioned in a erib with a toy and a baby bottle were prejudicial
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled by State v. Met, 826 Utah Adv. Rep. 53 (2016)
749 P2d 1239 (Utah, 1988), overruled by Met v State, 388 P3d 447
The opinion
*1262 HOWE, Justice
(concurring):
I concur, except I desire to withhold my concurrence from any implication that defendant’s belief that he had received divine revelation to kill four people could not be relied upon by the examiners as a basis for their opinions as to his mental state. While I agree generally that religious beliefs and experiences may not be assumed to be unreal or inquired into by the courts, as stated in the majority opinion, it is unnecessary to the disposition of this case to rely on that rule when considering a religious belief as to divine direction to kill.
DURHAM, J., concurs in the concurring opinion of HOWE, J.