Court Opinion

ID: 9536993
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:10:48.868787+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:55:41.295678
License: Public Domain

ELLETT, Justice
(dissenting) :
I dissent. The defendant is a cold-blooded murderer by his own confession. The prevailing opinion would give him a new trial on the ground that the trial court abused its discretion in permitting the district attorney to cross-examine the defendant as he did.
The defendant took the witness stand and on direct examination testified that he weighed 130 pounds and that from about four in the afternoon of July 8, 1970, until two in the morning of July 9, 1970, he drank 20 sixteen-ounce cans of beer. He also testified that he took the drug valium at about the same time. He further testified that he had been in mental hospitals, twice in Oregon and once in Utah.
His counsel said he put in only the minimum evidence to lay a foundation — [for a pharmacologist and a psychologist to later testify that the defendant would thus have an alcoholic content in his blood from .210 per cent to .317 per cent by weight and as a *221result the defendant would be confused and emotionally unstable and would have faulty judgment].
The district attorney on cross-examination properly inquired of the defendant if he had been previously convicted of a felony.1 He then elicited the fact that the defendant remained in the Utah Mental Hospital for a period of three weeks and in an Oregon hospital one and one-half months the first time and had run away from the hospital the second time. Then the district attorney inquired of him what he did during the period of time he claimed to be drinking the 20 cans of beer and got such a detailed response of remembered things that the answers to the pharmacologist and the psychologist to hypothetical questions were not too helpful to the defendant’s cause. It was quite clear from the cross-examination of the defendant that he never drank 20 sixteen-ounce cans of beer as he claimed, if the testimony of the experts could be believed.
When the defendant was asked if he remembered getting the gun, his counsel asked if they might approach the bench, and out of the presence of the jury said:
The reason that I have put on very limited direct is because I have to have that as a foundation, and I don’t think that by asking him what hospital he’s been in and how much he had to drink and how much valium he had permits Mr. Banks to go through the whole evening all over again, and exactly what’s going to happen is he’s going to sit up there and continue to deny things. That’s going to hurt us in front of the jury. This goes way beyond the scope of direct.
The extent and degree of cross-examination rest in the sound discretion of the judge trying the case.2 When a defendant offers himself as a witness in his own behalf, his cross-examination is governed by the same rules as that of any other witness, and he may on cross-examination be interrogated concerning his past life insofar as it affects his memory or credibility, and much latitude of inquiry should be permitted in that regard. People v. Hite, 8 Utah 461, 33 P. 254 (1893).
The Hite case, supra, like the instant one was for murder. Hite testified in his own behalf but was very limited in what he said. On appeal he contended that the trial court had permitted the prosecuting attorney to go beyond the direct examination. In affirming the conviction this court at page 473 of the Utah Reports, page 256 of 33 P. said:
In his cross-examination the prosecuting attorney went still further back, and his inquiry descended still further into *222particulars. He interrogated the defendant as to transactions evidently for the purpose of testing his recollection, and of bringing to light conduct that would affect his credibility.
It is the duty of the juror to judge of the credibility of the witness, and to weigh his testimony in the light of his opportunities to know, to understand, and remember, and in view of his motives and his moral worth as evidenced by his conduct, and in view of his character established by his life as well as by the light of experience and reason.
To enable the juror to judge of the credibility of the witness, rigid cross-examinations are sometimes necessary and much latitude of inquiry should be permitted. The investigation of truth is sometimes attended with the humiliation and disgrace of the witness and appears to be remorseless.
As to the tender-hearted juror, I can see no error in peremptorily excusing her from service. The punishment for the crime of murder in the first degree of Utah is death unless on recommendation of leniency by the jury the court otherwise directs. Since conviction can be had only on the unanimous concurrence of all twelve jurors, it is easy to see that it would be impossible to obtain a conviction of first-degree murder if even one juror would not agree to a verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree under any circumstances.
The juror made her position clear when she answered “Yes” to the last question asked by the district attorney, which was:
I’ll try to make it a little simpler. If you believed that the evidence showed a defendant to be guilty of murder in the first degree beyond a reasonable doubt, and you knew that the judge might not follow a recommendation of leniency, rather than returning a verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree, would you return a verdict of murder in the second degree because you knew that that took it out of the judge’s hands?
I would affirm the conviction and judgment of the trial court.
CALLISTER, C. J., concurs.

. State v. Johnson, 76 Utah 84, 95, 287 P. 909 (1930).

. Mulliner v. McCornick & Co., 69 Utah 557, 257 P. 658 (1927).