Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1903-08-13
TWO PICTURES OF PETER MoRTENsEN

TNSfNsFT'fNFTFTsEFsNf
no way affects the jurisdiction Of the
court to try the cause or to pass valid
Judgment II is not very unlike the
right which every one accused Of. and
being prosecuted for crime has to
plead guilty aad thereby waive the
production Of any evidence by the pros.
ecutiOn, and surely an agree that In
such case, wt~re a plea Of guilty IS en-
tered u court Of competent jurisdiction
has power 10 pass judgment and au-
thorize the penalties Of the law TO be
executed.
MONEY EVIDENCE.
"rhe defendant in the case at bar
could not Ggy 'Naive his right TO be
confronted with the witness. bur II is
difficult TO see how statements admitted
as evidence could have been prejudicial
20 him The prosecution endeayored TO
show that the defendant had not the
money and could moi pay the $500 10
MIR Hay as he claimed How, then,
could dependant DE prejudlced by o
stipulation showing that lust prior to
The homicide he had received S21f0
from one person. such evidence would
have been strong circumstances 10 fu-
Y0r OF innocence 1t Is thus evident
that no harm resulted because Of hts
waiver bf hl9 constitutional right. and
that such waiver constitutes no ground
Tor complaint
FATHER-lN-LAW'S TESTIMONY.
The appellant also complains OF the
action of the court in admitting In evil
dence that portion Of James ShaIp's
testimony relating To certain state
mrnts made by the witness over the
del' body Of his sOn-in-laW while the
boe Was lying In the patol wagon in
tiunt % Headiys store The statements
obs htpd To are, lie murdered YOU for
a receipt that was on your body rep
resenting $500 and you never ran
away, nor he never gave you dollar.
In answering questions as TO what de-
PENDANT said and done. the witness
stat@l He didn't say anything, bur
hung his head and looked on the
ground. What took place there was
Of most material character in its
bearings upon the offense and the ac.
cused and we perceive nothing In the
record, nor do we know Of any rule Of
evidence, which under the circum-
stances, prevented the prosecution from
introducing proof OF what was said and
done IL was the duty Of the defend
ant TO speak and his failure TO do so
was a Circumstance which the Jury had
right to consider in determining the
question of his guilt or innocence.
QUAsI-CONFEssION.
"Mr. underhill, in his work on Grim
inal Evidence, section l22. says The
silence Of the accused as regards state
ments made in his hearing which i'm
plioate him may be proved with the
statements, and from his acqulescence
the jury may infer his guilt Silence
is assent as well as consent. and
may, where a direct and specific accu-
sation OF crime In made be regarded
under some circumstances as a quasi
confession
VIEWING OF PREMISES.
The counsel contend that the trial
court In permitting the jury to view
the premises where the homicide oc-
CURED without the presence OF the de-
PENDANT and the court. deprived the de.
PENDANT OF his constitutional rights.
This, II Is urged. WIS taking evidence
In the absence OF the defendant and de-
prived him OF the right of confr0nta.
ton. II IL We're conceded that the view
OF the premises, by the jury. were the
taking Of testimony upon the trial,
there might be some force In the posi-.
lion OF the defense. but we are unable
10 c0ncede that the view was either a
part OF the trial or the taking OF evil
dcnce, within the meaning Of the con-
sttuti0n or the statute. We are unable
to agree that the view Is taking evi.
dence al the trial In the sense IN which |
the term trial * used in the cOnstitu.
ton, or thar the presence OF the ac- |
cused at the view Is essential under |
our statute. although. we doubt not. |
mat, IN every such ease the prisoner |
should be afforded. ns he was In this |
Instance an opportunity 20 Doe present |
no the view. II such De his desire That |
the accused whore q view is permitted |
by the court should have nm D1por- |
tunity 20 be present we entertain no !
doubt, but when he has had such OPP 4
portunlty and has declined o. then
HIS MERE ABSENCE
cannot avn him. after verdict. to re-.
verse tho Judgment
AZ the TRIAL on crlgs-eNaminQtion, l
'ounSal for the appellant porslstently /
ut9rrugated one OF the witnesses for the
nate about a certain revelation, which. /
o setms. the witness claimed to have /
lad from God, Respecting the murder i
md the Preparation Of ID by the aC.
used. The record SHOWS "a deliberate
determination on the part uf the dciynse
90 base the witness state the details Of
what ne claimed had been revealed 20
lin from supernatural sources. al
hough there were NO Inquiries made
espectmg such revelation by the prose-
ution or direct examination, After
hey had Knowingly and deliberately |
md evidently designediy. elected such
testimony upon cross-eXaminaion the
ounsel for the prisoner both sides hay-
NC rested. requested the court to
'harge the jury that. IN considering the
violence IN the case they should not
axe any statements aH t0 revelation. |
MO consideration. and that such state
ncnis should be considered only 10 de-
ermlning the credlhllliy OF the Wit
less,' The court refused o. instruct
pecialiy IN the language requested but !
harged the jury generally and quite
ully in regard tu their duties respect
ne all the evidence introduced upon the
rial,
The appellant. through the same
Ounsel, now complains VI the adfuls.