Court Opinion

ID: 9586613
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:13:18.324234+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:45.317598
License: Public Domain

HENRIOD, Justice
(concurring in the result).
I concur in the result, and in the reasoning of Mr. Justice Ellett, except that I think those cases cited anent extraordinary writs do not apply in this particular case.
In this case the District Attorney’s whole contention at the trial and on this appeal was that the proffered evidence which was suppressed was all that the State ever could produce. Granting the motion to suppress was as final in disposing of this case as was possible. The authorities cited in the main opinion had to do with interlocutory matters in cases which were still pending, — not finished as is the case here — and hence in-apropos here.
I think this case can be decided without the necessity of going into the matter of what the functions of the extraordinary writs are, or any discussion of Miranda or any other case.
Also, I think the concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Crockett is pedantic and quite unnecessary, based on the frayed raimant of the word “forthright.”
*229This case was in substance decided in State v. Brady,1 on identical issues. Why not cite that case, affirm it and quit cogitating on something else?

. 18 Utah 2d 434, 425 P.2d 155 (1967).