Court Opinion

ID: 9542326
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:33:12.101217+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:07:43.093181
License: Public Domain

CROCKETT, Justice
(concurring specially) .
I concur in affirming the conviction hut desire to make these comments: In regard to the question of instructing upon the subject of recently stolen property, to which Sec. 76-38-1, U.C.A.1953 applies, I agree that the jury is not concerned with determining when the State has made a prima facie case. That is for the court and it is the jury’s responsibility to determine the guilt or innocence of the defendant. However, I think that under some circumstances it may be both advisable and correct for the trial court to instruct the jury in simple and concise language on the subject dealt with in that statute.
The determination of the facts should be scrupulously left to the jury. They could be told that if they believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the property had been recently stolen; that it was found in the possession of the defendant; and that when afforded an opportunity, he gave no satisfactory explanation of his possession, then if it so appeals to their minds they may draw an inference that the defendant committed the larceny, which inference might be considered by them along with all the evidence in the case in determining whether they were convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt. See State v. Hall, 105 Utah 162, 145 P.2d 494; State v. Crowder, 114 Utah 202, 197 P.2d 917; and Farley v. State, 93 Okl.Cr. 192, 226 P.2d 1002. Handling the matter in this manner advises the jury what the law is, but in my judgment *202does not constitute a comment on the evidence, nor otherwise invade the province .of the jury.
McDonough and callister, jj., concur . in the views expressed by CROCKETT, J.