Court Opinion

ID: 9536613
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:03:24.029341+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:54:50.874554
License: Public Domain

HENRIOD, Chief Justice
(concurring):
I have to concur in the result of the main opinion, since the question of the death penalty is not before us as it was in State v. Winkle, Utah, 528 P.2d 467 (1974). I am still of the opinion, however, that the death penalty is available in Utah, in spite of, — and strangely enough, — because of Furman v. Georgia.1 If ever the death penalty were justified, it would seem to be applicable here, where a little child was murdered by someone declared to have been competent, subject to McNaghten’s case,2 which this Court and most everyone else have considered to be the test of vulnerability for prosecution in the taking of a human’s life, — magnified in this case by the death of a baby who could not fight back. No one can bring back the life of this baby nor condole with reverence for legal or human rights, where none exists, — no how!
The implication by my learned colleagues, Crockett and Maughan, that there is no death penalty in Utah because of the Furman case, in my opinion is quite erroneous. It certainly cannot be cited as the law or rule of this case, since no one raised the issue on appeal, — and such implication, anyway is premature since the Winkle case mentioned above, is still pending in this Court, because a petition for rehearing of that case has been granted.

. 408 U.S. 238, 92 S.Ct. 2726, 33 L.Ed. 346 (1972).

. 10 Clark & F. 200; State v. Kirkham, 7 Utah 2d 108, 319 P.2d 859 (1958).