Court Opinion

ID: 9792984
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:40:23.973756+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:02:15.724655
License: Public Domain

CROCKETT, Justice
(dissenting).
It is my opinion that this court should decide the issues presented on appeal: (1) as to the authority of the Board of State Parks and Recreation to enact appropriate *306regulations governing the use of the State Park System; and (2) the challenged validity of the regulation relating to the use and control of animals within a state park.
The first and most persuasive reason is that the appeal is justified under subsection (3) of Section 77-39^1, quoted in the main opinion. The order appealed from was one: “made after judgment affecting the substantial rights of the State.” I think it is a plain and self-demonstrating proposition that the State has a substantial and important interest in sustaining the authority of the Board of State Parks and Recreation to enact reasonable and appropriate regulations governing the use of the State Park System. The difficulties which would exist and the mischief which could result if the Board did not have power to enact and enforce such regulations are so obvious as not to require any elaboration.
The second proposition is that if we disregard formality and verbiage and go to the substance of what was done, the effect of the ruling of the trial court was to quash the proceeding and thus make a basic challenge to the validity of the charge. This effect is the same whether made upon the motion of the defendant or upon the court’s own motion. Therefore, a review of the dismissal would come within the purpose of subdivision (1) of Section 77-39-4 as quoted in the main opinion.
Pursuant to what I have said above, on either of the bases stated, I think we should consider and rule upon the merits of the issues presented on appeal; and that a fortiori, because of the combination of both cases, we should do so. This is more particularly so, because the defendant has indicated no opposition to such adjudication, which is quite understandable because there can be no further jeopardy to him in this case. See State v. Thatcher, 108 Utah 63, 157 P.2d 258.