Title: State v. Landrum

State: utah

Issuer: Utah Supreme Court

Document:

3 Utah 2d 372 (1955) 284 P.2d 693 STATE OF UTAH, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT, v. JOHN MURRAY LANDRUM AND BILL FRENTRESS, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS. No. 8333. Supreme Court of Utah. May 31, 1955. C.C. Patterson, Joseph C. Foley, Ogden, for appellants. E.R. Callister, Jr., Atty. Gen., Walter L. Budge, Asst. Atty. Gen., L. Roland Anderson, Robert L. Newey, Ogden, for respondent. WORTHEN, Justice. This appeal attacks the validity of the short-form information permitted by our statute, under which the defendants were charged and convicted of the crime of robbery. Defendants specifically contend that the information fails to accord defendants the protection guaranteed by Article 1, Section 12 of the Constitution of Utah, which provides: The state contends that the information meets the requirements of Sections 77-21-8 and 77-21-47, U.C.A. 1953, and that the same satisfies the constitutional guarantees of defendants. The charging part of the information was as follows: "John Murray Landrum, Patricia O'Hara, and Bill Frentress robbed Joseph Shepherd." Defendants contend that the information is not sufficient to apprise defendants of the nature and cause of the accusation nor to enable them to defend, and that it is so indefinite that they may be subjected to double jeopardy. The statutes involved are Sections 77-21-8 and 77-21-47, U.C.A. 1953, set out below so far as essential: In the case of State v. Hill[1] in answering the contention of the defendants that Sections 77-21-8 and 47 violate the provisions of Article 1, Section 12 of our constitution this court, at page 458 of 100 Utah and 393 of 116 P.2d said: This Court in that case, after referring to section 77-21-9, U.C.A. 1953, providing for furnishing the defendant with a bill of particulars, at page 462 of 100 Utah, at page 395 of 116 P.2d, said: The Section cited by the court is now Section 77-21-47, U.C.A. 1953. Section 77-21-47, U.C.A. 1953, does not declare that the forms set out as short forms shall be sufficient in every case; the section authorizes the use of specified short forms in cases in which they are applicable. The statute does not declare that the form used in the information charging defendants with robbery is sufficient. However, in this case we are of the opinion that the information was sufficient and that defendants were denied no constitutional rights by the same. It met the requirements of Section 77-21-8. It charged defendants with having committed a crime, known to the law, and it stated the act which defendants did constituting that crime. It met the requirements of Article 1, Section 12 of our Constitution; it advised the defendants of the nature and cause of the accusation against them. Judgment affirmed. McDONOUGH, C.J., and CROCKETT, HENRIOD and WADE, JJ., concur. [1] 100 Utah 456, 116 P.2d 392.