# State v. Brown

> Utah Supreme Court · November 30, 1992 · 201 Utah Adv. Rep. 4

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9580162

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Donald Wayne BROWN, Defendant and Appellant
- **Court:** Utah Supreme Court
- **Decided:** November 30, 1992
- **Citations:** 201 Utah Adv. Rep. 4; 853 P.2d 851; 1992 Utah LEXIS 99; 1992 WL 355069
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Hall
- **Judges:** Durham, Stewart, Hall, Howe, Zimmerman
- **Cited by:** 91 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9580162

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding, pursuant to court's inherent supervisory power over courts, that "counsel with concurrent prosecutorial obligations may not be appointed to defend indigent persons"
- explaining that a party must make a clear and definite objection at trial to preserve an evidentiary challenge for appeal
- explaining why court will not address argument raised for first time in reply brief

## Opinion text

HALL, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
I do not join the court in reversing the conviction on the ground of conflict of interest in the absence of a showing that defendant was in any way prejudiced by reason of his representation by a part-time city attorney. Nothing in the record reveals that defendant was afforded anything less than the undivided loyalty and able assistance of counsel he was entitled to, 1 and it is not for us to speculate otherwise.
In addition, the prosecutorial duties of defense counsel were limited to violation of city ordinances, 2 whereas defendant was tried for a violation of state law. Hence, there was no conflict with defense counsel’s duties as a city attorney.
The distinct differences in the prosecuto-rial responsibilities of county and city attorneys explain the reason the statutory prohibition against county attorneys acting as defense counsel 3 does not include city attorneys.
In any event, in view of the evidence adduced at trial, it is unlikely that a new trial will produce a different result.
. Utah Code Ann. § 77-32-1 (4).
. Utah Code Ann. § 10-3-928 (amended in 1991 to permit prosecution of class A misdemeanors in the name of the State of Utah).
. Utah Code Ann. § 17-18 -l(9)(a) (Supp.1992) (formerly Utah Code Ann. § 17-18-2 (10)(a)).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9580162. Public record. Not legal advice.