Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

123 Utah 267

258 P.2d 452

State v. Hendricks

Utah Supreme Court

Decided June 15, 1953

Utah Supreme Court · decided 1953-06-15

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““In this case there has been testimony introduced to the effect that the accused, the defendant Charles Turner, was under the influence of intoxicating liquor at the time that the alleged offense took place, and you are instructed as follows: “That while voluntary intoxication is neither an excuse nor a defense, yet, if you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was intoxicated to the extent that he was mentally incapable of forming an intent to commit the act of sodomy on the person of Fern Williams, and because of such intoxicated condition he was incapable of forming an intent to commit the act, then you should find the defendant not guilty of the offense charged.” (Italics ours.)”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 3 Utah 2d 285 - State v. Turner

Relies on State v. Waid · Jensen v. Utah Ry. Co. · State v. Laris

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1953-06-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently August 2013

3 state decisions

101953196019701980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1 James L. Hendricks was convicted by a jury of involuntary manslaughter.

¶2 This appeal challenges the propriety of giving two instructions to which he took due and timely exception. These are:

Inst. 11
“Mere negligence is not sufficient to justify a verdict of involuntary manslaughter. … If you believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant was not driving his automobile recklessly or unlawfully or with a marked disregard for the safety of others, and that such manner of driving was not the proximate cause of the accident, then you will not be justified in bringing in a verdict of guilty.”
Inst. 12
«… if you believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant was suddenly confronted with the situation of peril which he could not avoid, then you are instructed to bring in a verdict of not guilty.” (Emphasis added.)

¶3 It is elementary that in criminal cases the State has the burden of proving every essential element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Both as to the proof of the *269 State’s case, and as to matters of defense, all that is necessary to entitle the defendant to an acquittal is that there exist a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. And this is so whether the defendant offers any evidence or not. Instead of indulging the defendant with his presumption of innocence, the burden was shifted upon him to prove facts showing his innocence beyond a reasonable doubt. This was prejudicial error. 1

¶4 The fact that elsewhere in the instructions the jury were correctly instructed on the presumption of innocence does not cure the instant error. Although the instructions are to be considered as a whole, where they are in irreconcilable conflict, they could but confuse or mislead the jury. 2

¶5 Reversed, with directions to grant a new trial.

/123/utah/267 · .json · Public domain