Opinion ID: 1174739
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Legality of Arrests

Text: Defendants contend that the State did not comply with U.C.A., 1953, § 77-1-3(3) (1982), requiring that informations be presented and signed by a prosecuting attorney. The informations were subscribed and sworn to by Guy W. Blunk, a police officer, before a circuit judge. On the back side of the informations appears the statement, Authorized for presentment and filing: Ted Cannon, County Attorney, and the personal signature of W.C. Gwynn, Deputy. In State ex rel. Cannon v. Leary, Utah, 646 P.2d 727, 730 (1982), this Court determined that the requirement of § 77-1-3(3) is met by an information being sworn to by a person having reason to believe the offense has been committed and authorized by a prosecuting attorney. Thus, the informations in the present case met the necessary legal requirements. Moreover, defendants waived any objections to defects in the informations where they made no objections to the informations either before or during trial. See State v. Hall, Utah, 671 P.2d 201, 202 (1983); Utah R.Crim.P. 12(b)(1), (d). Defendants also argue that there was no probable cause for their arrests. A defendant's failure to object to the legality of his arrest prior to trial constitutes a waiver of that issue. Utah R.Crim.P. 12(b)(1), (d). In the present case, defendants waived any objections to the legality of their arrests.