Court Opinion

ID: 9625879
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 07:53:38.813196+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:16.297330
License: Public Domain

LATIMER, Justice.
I concur in the result.
My reasons for affirming the judgment are for the most part based upon the principles set forth in my dissenting opinion in State v. Trujillo, 117 Utah 237, 214 P. 2d 626.
This happens to be another case in which I believe the trial judge correctly applied the law to the facts developed during the trial. The evidence introduced was sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the killer deliberately, wilfully, and maliciously brutally assaulted the deceased, either with intent to kill or with intent to do great bodily harm. The jury was properly instructed on both possibilities. To argue that the jury could consider robbery as a motive for the killing overlooks two important facts. First, the trial court eliminated the issue of killing in the perpetration of a robbery and this ruling is the law of the case until reversed. Second, if the intent to rob or dispose of the body and effects to prevent detection was formed after the assault it could not legally affect the prior intent of the killer.