# State v. Anderson

> Utah Supreme Court · May 29, 1980 · 612 P.2d 778

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9847808

## Case

- **Full name:** The STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Roger ANDERSON and Thomas E. Brackenbury, Defendants and Appellants
- **Court:** Utah Supreme Court
- **Decided:** May 29, 1980
- **Citations:** 612 P.2d 778; 1980 Utah LEXIS 964
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Crockett
- **Judges:** Maughan, Crockett, Hall, Wilkins, Stewart
- **Cited by:** 56 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Overruled by State v. Clark, 414 Utah Adv. Rep. 10 (2001).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9847808

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- recognizing the ancillary benefits of the preliminary hearing
- explaining history of preliminary examinations
- discussing importance of preliminary hearing

## Opinion text

CROCKETT, Chief Justice
(concurring in result, with comments):
I concur in the result of the main opinion, but feel impelled to make some observations.
According to my understanding of the opinion, its import is that if Section 77-15-19, U.C.A. is applied in accordance with its terms, by admitting evidence by hearsay or by affidavit, it is in violation of constitutional safeguards. With this I cannot agree. The statute impresses me as being carefully and advisedly drawn, with adequate protections for the rights of an accused, and of the public; and that it is therefore fair and constitutional if properly applied.
It is also pertinent to observe that the courts should not reach out and hold a statute unconstitutional in the abstract, but should do so only if it is in violation of the constitutional rights of the person complaining. 1 The main opinion itself properly points out that what was done in applying Section 77-15-19 in this case resulted in no prejudice to the defendants. I am therefore unable to see justification or purpose in attacking either that statute or its application herein. 2
I agree that the grant of immunity by the county attorney to defendant Bracken-bury is fairly understood to include what *788 was done with respect to the prospective witness Applegate; and that the charge against him should be dismissed.
. Baird v. State, Utah, 574 P.2d 713 (1978).
. That when the court determines that a statute does not apply in a case, it should not go further and consider its validity, see 3 Am.Jur. 383; Heathman v. Giles, 13 Utah 2d 368 , 374 P.2d 839 (1962); State v. Granato, Utah, 610 P.2d 1290 (1980).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9847808. Public record. Not legal advice.