# State v. Lafferty

> Utah Supreme Court · January 11, 1988 · 73 Utah Adv. Rep. 57

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9572909

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Ronald Watson LAFFERTY, Defendant and Appellant
- **Court:** Utah Supreme Court
- **Decided:** January 11, 1988
- **Citations:** 73 Utah Adv. Rep. 57; 749 P.2d 1239; 1988 Utah LEXIS 10; 1988 WL 3761
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Howe
- **Judges:** Zimmerman, Stewart, Hall, Durham, Howe
- **Cited by:** 175 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Overruled by State v. Met, 826 Utah Adv. Rep. 53 (2016).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9572909

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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 ev…
- 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
- declining to reach state constitutional claims on grounds that defendant "relied nominally on state constitutional provisions while actually relying on the parallel federal constitutional provisions and analysis based on them"

## Opinion text

*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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9572909. Public record. Not legal advice.