Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1903-05-20
ARGUMENTS IN
MORTENSEn CASE

The supreme court today heard argu-
ments in the case Of the state Of Utah
vs. Peter Mortensen, convicted Of the
murder Of James H. Hay and sentenced
to death Arguments were commenced
at about lll5 this morning by Atty.
Barnard j. Stewart for the defendant.
This being the last case on the regular
calendar. the court consented to give
the attorneys more time in which to
argue the case. Mr.. stewart argued
FOR two hours and was followed by
Dlst-Atty. Eichnor and Atty.-Gen.
Breeder for the state, who VIII be al
lowed two hours between them. The
arguments were not completed when
the News report closed,
Mr.. Stewart in his argument cited Is
errors Of the trial court upon which the
defendant relies for new trial. The
greatest stress, however, was laid up
on the admission OF j. c. Sharp's tes-
tlmony by stipulation the visit OF the
jury TO the premises Of the defendant
unaccompanied by him and the testi-
mony Of John sharp IN regard TO his
revelation. on tE~se points Mr. Stew
art said In part:
THE SHARP TESTIMONY.
III II was not prejudiclal TO the rights
OF the defendant to thus stipulate into
the record for the consideration OF the
jury, the testimony of j. c, sharp, Il
certainly would not have been preiudi-
cial TO the defendant had all the testi-
mony pertaining to the defendants
financial status been admitted in slip
ulation form. Why the necessity OF
oath or the confronting OF the defend
ant with any witnesses2 Why not all
low counsel to go into court and stlpu-
late as to all the evidence to be pro-
duced against the defendant In other
words, II our contention Ia wrong, then
counsel can stipulate away the funda-
mental law established for the protec-
ton Of the rights OF the accused, aud
this would be nothing less than stipu.
lating away the life OF the accused.
Let us ooncede, but not admit, for
the sake Of argument, that the Leg
islature intended that the viewing Of
the premises should not be considered
as evidence but first we must admit
that II was the intention OF the Legis-
lature and that is the very purpose OF
the law and the guarantee Of the funda-
mental law of the Constitution, that ev-
cry man charged with crime shall be
confronted with those persons who
shall testify against him, whether that
testimony came from animate Witnesses
or inanimate witnesses. II the Legisla-
ture errs in It's conception Of what con-
stitutes evidence and what does mt
constitute evidence, and what facts,
and procedure are necessarily consid-
cred by a jury In arriving at a verdict,
this error being the result OF good in
tention, with a want OF actual knowl.
edge Of the application or practical
demonstration and effect Of any princi-
pie, law or rule which It seems they
have attempted to enforce, is It not the
prerogatiye, right and the imposed duty
OF this court 10 consider the actual re-
suit, rather than take for granted the
theoretical results?
''The record I'm this case shows that
one James Sharp, the father-in-law of
James r. Hay, the decedent. and Wit
ness for the state testified that God
had revealed TO him that Peter MOrten-
SUM- ilit htithhtllllt nhu hllitn illH S'i-
in-iaw, James r.. Hay the decedent,
and that the decedent never left the
defendants premises alive That God
had revealed the guilt of the dfendanA
Peter Mortensen, to the wtneas by thu
utteranoef OF His Gods mouth, III
proof that Peter Mortensen had killed
his son That he appeared to him (wit-
ness) by the power Of His Gods Spirit.
in the presence Of the Holy Ghost and,
that being In the presence Of God, wit
ness dared not speak other than the
words God had given him to utter.
This testimony was allowed to go to
the Jury without even the slightest inti-
nation or suggestion by the trial court
that this testimony Nns improper, or
that they should not consider Il in ar
irving at a verdict. A large
number OF the jurors impaneled 10 try
the defendant were and are Of the same
religious faith as Witness James Sharp
to-wlt: What IL commonly known as
MOrmonism, and were believers in
the doctrine Of revelation