Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1902-08-27
No New Trial
FOR M0rtenSen
Judge Morse 0veruIeS Prisoners Motion and Says He
Morning -Stewarts May Ask forStay of Judgment

and otherwise prejudlcial TO the sub
stontial rights OF defendant
5--'fhe verdict is contrary TO the law
and evidence In the case
Upon the hearing OF The motion
counsel for defendant did not point out
any errors under the second paragraph
given above 50 that will not be con.
sidered at all There seems to be but
four questions raised by counsel:
"First-W Whether or not court erred in
permitting the jury 10 visit the
premises without being accompanied by
defendant,
Second. Whether under the showing
made there was such misconduct on the
part of the jury 10 warrant a new trial
Third. Whether the misconduct OF the
district attorney was such as to war
rant a new trial
Fourth. Whether the evidence OF
Mrs Hay was correctly admitted.
THE principal question however, is
the first one raised. / have read with
great care the authorities submitted on
that point Under our constitution |
am OF the opinion that defendant has
the right to accompany the jury TO the
scene Of the crime, but under the cases
cited that right was denied defendant
and hence a new trial was granted, In
the present case the right to accom-
pai.y the jury was not denied defend
ant. | have been unable to find case
IN which the supreme court has held
that court should compel defendant
TO- accompany the jury.
Thus under our Constitution II would
be error 10 compel defendant TO accom-
pany The jury. Now. If when defend
ant should decline to accompany the
Jury, the court should compel him 10
10 SO, that would have been error
am Of ihs opinion that he had an op
portunitS 10 accompany the jury and
declined to do so and it was not within
the Bower OF the coGrt 10 compel him
10 go hcQce there was no error com
mltted in this case In allowing the jury
10 visit the premises without the de-
PENDANT
The next question is the action Of
the hirors IN stepping OF the distances,
viii assume that the stepping OFF was
done as set forth IN the
affidavit OF the attorney fm
defendant, I don't think there wa
any error In that so far rs the record
goes. There was no distance in dis
pute on the trial hence there was no
reason for the Jury using such measure.
ments as evidence The distances were
not In question
"As 10 the remarks Of the district at.
torney, | have'reyiewed the same care
fully and am Of the opinion that they
Vyrc rnt vrrh as to warrant new trial
or that ground.
"O9 tFo III question raised, am OF
the opinion that the evidence Of Mrs
How was properly admitted
let an order be entered overruling
defendants motion for a new trial"
nisa Attv Elchnor at once moved
tho court that sentence be passed upon
defendant Peter MOrtensen at once.
NV. Parnard Stewart pefed ihat the
passing Of sentence be deferred for a
few DAYS n order that mo.
ton for arrest Of Judgment
might be filed Mr.. EIchnor resisted
any continuance ~ ne matter. but the
court decided that he would grant the
request N defendants attorney. He
accordinglvannounced that the date for
RAISING sentence on defendant would
be fixed ct next Tuesday morning, Sept. |
2, at 10 o'clock,