From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Washington

Supreme Court of Utah
Sep 23, 1965
405 P.2d 793 (Utah 1965)

Opinion

No. 10387.

September 23, 1965.

Appeal from the Third District Court, Salt Lake County, Joseph G. Jeppson, J.

Robert Buddy Washington, pro se.

Phil L. Hansen, Atty. Gen., State of Utah, Ronald N. Boyce, Asst. Atty. Gen., State of Utah, for respondent.


Appeal from a conviction and judgment on a jury verdict on a third degree burglary charge. Affirmed.

The evidence in this case is overwhelming to show that a burglary was committed at the time and place charged. Likewise it was shown that on the night of the burglary, defendant's fingerprints were found on a cardboard box, without any attempt at explanation by anyone that would indicate anything other than that the accused was in the house.

Defendant urges that the complainant lied when he said he had drawn some money out of a local bank prior to the burglary and that it was missing thereafter. It appears that the accused may have been right about a prevarication, but that fact does not establish that there was not and could not have been a burglary. The jury, on competent and very substantial evidence given by impartial investigating peace officers as to the physical facts and the identification of defendant by fingerprints, all of which was undisputed, easily could have led the jury to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that a burglary had been committed and that the defendant did it. The facts reflected in the record are such that this court justifiably cannot disturb the verdict.

McDONOUGH, CROCKETT, WADE and CALLISTER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

State v. Washington

Supreme Court of Utah
Sep 23, 1965
405 P.2d 793 (Utah 1965)
Case details for

State v. Washington

Case Details

Full title:THE STATE OF UTAH, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT, v. ROBERT BUDDY WASHINGTON…

Court:Supreme Court of Utah

Date published: Sep 23, 1965

Citations

405 P.2d 793 (Utah 1965)
17 Utah 2

Citing Cases

State v. Hamilton

We have always treated fingerprint evidence like any other evidence and have never evaluated its sufficiency…