THIEDE V. UTAH, 159 U. S. 510 (1895)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 159 U. S. 510

U.S. Supreme Court

Thiede v. Utah, 159 U.S. 510 (1895)

Thiede v. Utah

No. 633

Submitted October 21, 1895

Decided November 11, 1895

159 U.S. 510


It is not error in Utah to proceed to trial of a person accused of murder before the filing of the transcript of the preliminary examination had under the Compiled Laws of Utah, section 4883.

The provision in Rev.Stat. section 1033 that the defendant in a capital case is entitled to have delivered to him at least two entire days before the trial a copy of the indictment and a list of the witnesses to be produced on the trial does not control the practice and procedure of the local courts of Utah.

In Utah, a juror in a capital case who states on his voir dire that he had read an account of the homicide in the newspaper and formed some impression touching it, but that he could lay that aside and try the case fairly

and impartially on the evidence, is not subject to challenge for cause. A juror is not subject to challenge for cause in a criminal proceeding

Page 159 U. S. 511

against a saloon keeper for homicide who states on his voir dire that he has a prejudice against the business of saloon keeping, but none against the defendant, whom he does not know.

When the relations between a defendant charged with murdering his wife and the wife are to be settled not by direct and positive, but by circumstantial, evidence, any circumstance which tends to throw light thereon may be fairly admitted in evidence.

The order in which testimony shall be admitted is largely within the discretion of the trial court.

When the court rules correctly that certain matters are not proper subjects of cross-examination, and notifies the questioning party that he can recall the witness and examine him fully in reference to those matters, and he fails to recall him or introduce testimony thereon, he has no grounds of complaint.

The credibility of a female witness cannot be impeached by asking her whether she has not had some difficulty with her husband.

When the defendant in a criminal case consents that a member of the jury+ shall act as interpreter for a witness speaking a foreign language, none of his rights are prejudiced by the juryman's so doing.

An exception in bulk to a refusal to charge several propositions, separately numbered but offered in bulk, cannot be maintained if any one proposition be unsound.

Deliberation and premeditation to commit crime need not exist in the criminal's mind for any fixed period before the commission of the act.

Exceptions to the ruling of the court in a jury trial, tendered twelve days after the verdict was rendered, are too late.

The case is stated in the opinion.

ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review :

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line :