The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1903-08-14
M0RTENSEN is
DOOMED TO DIE
Supreme Court Denies Motion
For a New Trial.
JUDGES WERE UNANIMOUS
IMPORTANT QUESTIONS IN
VoLVED IN APPEAL.

II ETER MORTENSEN must give up
his life in exchange for the one he
took from James +. Hay. The
state supreme court has refused him 4
new trial, unanimously OverruIing
every point raised by his attorneys. 1t
is now the duty of Judge Charles W.
Morse of the criminal division of the
district court to give the doomed man
MS choice of methods Of death, and for
a second time set the date when he
must be executed in accordance with
the law.
The opinion, which was written by
Associate Justice Bartch. was one Of
the longest and the most important
handed down by any member of that
tribunal in years. The apDeaI for q
new trial was based upon four import
ant questions, and in every instance
Judge Morse was sustained, and in one
whether the defendant can waive his
| HghL TO visit the scene of the alleged
crime with the jury-the court estab-
fishes precedent in Utah. IT holds
that the prisoner does not have to visit
the scene If he does not care to.
The Revelation Testimony.
Although the revelation Of James
Sharp was the most sensational feature
OF the trial, il received comparatively
little consideration at the hands of the
three supreme court judges. 1t was dis
posed Of in short order. As to its au-
thenucity no reference is made
IL was shown in the arguments that
the revelation testimony was adduced
by the defense, and IL sought to take
advantage Of it to secure a new trial.
The opinion says in substance that
when the defense asks a question, it is
elected TO stand by the answer; that
lnasmuch as the defense put in the rev
elation testimony, il does not come in
good grace for the attorneys for Nor
Jensen to ask for a new trial on any
question arising therefrOm. The court
even went so far rs TO intimate that
there was a generalization in its in
PRODUCTION
The greatest question decided by the
decision is the right of a defendant to
waive his right TO visit the scene of the
alleged crime with the jury and court.
The opinion says that while many Of
the courts of the United States are di-
Vided on that question. the Utah SUI
preme court VIII go on record as hold
ing that the prisoner can waive the
right.
In his opinion Judge Bartch says that
the viewing of the premises is not TAX
ing evidence or testimony any more
than when the jury retires to deliberate
upon its verdict. 1t is not taking evil
word trial is used in the Utah con-
sntution. Ut Is merely the viewing OF
inanimate objects
Prejudicial to the Prisoner.
To force the defendant to view the
scene with the jury, the justice adds,
would be prejUdicing his case in thu
eyes Of the jurors. He contends that
should the defendant be innocent. the
sentiments connected with the visit to
the scene would be certain to have
more or less effect upon the prisoner;
his demeanOr and every action would
be watched by every juror and any
actions on his part, any facial eX-
pressiOns or chance remark would be
used by the jurors in arriving al their
verdict That being true, as the court
views it, it would be prejudicial to the
defendant to compel him 20 visit tho
scene Of the alleged crime with the jury
and court.
The defense raised ar objection to
the testimony Of Mrs. hay. wife of the
deceased. The court Overruled it on