Court Opinion

ID: 9541038
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:22:00.969721+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:25.768185
License: Public Domain

HENRIOD, Justice
(dissenting).
State v. Miller controls here.1 Mr. Justice Tuckett concurred in that case, which dispelled any concern about the applicability of this case to criminal responsibility. That case, except for time of sentencing, is identical to this.
The main opinion must concede that the defendant is compromising this court by the simple device of absenting himself, in *234complete defiance of his agreed conditions for probation, from appearance at court on the date for his sentence, which was long before the effective date of the statute that he now invokes. This, with due apology to my learned colleague, Mr. Justice Tuckett, and with due respect for Mr. Ca-hoon, appointee of the court, who has spent a good deal of time on this case.
There is no justification for the main opinion in this case, unless we overrule State v. Miller, supra, or indulge in that sweet but forbidden luxury of legislating.
Mr. Richard Cahoon deserves our thanks for his uncompensated efforts in assisting the defendant and this court, but incidentally disagreeing with this dissent.
CALLISTER, C. J., concurs in the dissenting opinion of HENRIOD, J.

. 24 Utah 2d 1, 464 P.2d 844 (1970).