Court Opinion

ID: 9528978
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:45:52.354297+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:27:34.105007
License: Public Domain

CROCKETT, Justice
(concurring specially) .
I concur with the main opinion with one exception. I do not agree that it was error for the State not to extradite the out-of-state witnesses. I think it is important to say so because, if we improperly say it was error, cases may arise where it cannot be said that failure to obtain out-of-state witnesses was not prejudicial. The trial court was correct in its view of both the Utah statutory and decisional law, and in the procedure it followed as stated in the fourth paragraph of the main opinion. The case was properly tried on the basis of the *400Utah law'; and it should he adjudicated here on that same basis. The holding of the case of State v. Leggroan, footnote 2, main opinion,' is sound: that where the witnesses testified at the preliminary hearing, with ample opportunity for cross-examination, and they were absent from the State at the time of the trial, the use of their testimony was justified and did not violate the right of confrontation. This is especially so when the defendant, represented by competent counsel, gave no indication of his desire to have the witnesses extradited to testify.
ELLETT, J., concurs in the opinion of CROCICETT, T.