State v. Wilson

4 Citing cases

  1. State v. Grant

    242 Neb. 364 (Neb. 1993)   Cited 4 times
    In State v. Grant, 242 Neb. 364, 370, 495 N.W.2d 253, 257 (1993), overruled on other grounds by State v. Williams, 243 Neb. 959, 503 N.W.2d 561 (1993), we stated that "when the record demonstrates that a trial court understood the nature of the orally requested jury instruction, an appellate court may review the trial court's refusal to give the orally requested instruction."

    430 N.W.2d at 730. In addition to Iowa, courts of several other states have adopted the preceding two-part analysis for determining whether a requested instruction on a lesser-included offense must be given, for example, see, State v. Wilson, 701 P.2d 1058 (Utah 1985); State v. Perkins, 353 N.W.2d 557 (Minn. 1984); Moore v. State, 471 N.E.2d 684 (Ind. 1984); State v. Skjonsby, 319 N.W.2d 764 (N.D. 1982); and Com. v. Channell, 335 Pa. Super. 438, 484 A.2d 783 (1984).

  2. United States v. Petersen

    525 F. App'x 808 (10th Cir. 2013)   Cited 2 times

    The Utah Supreme Court has confirmed all this, expressly holding that the trespass statute's "notice element" bears no "relationship" to the state's burglary statute. State v. Wilson, 701 P.2d 1058, 1060 (Utah 1985). When it comes to burglary, then, the unlawful entry element doesn't require signs, it can be inferred from the facts, and ample facts in this case suggest Mr. Petersen's entry was anything but lawful.

  3. SLW/UTAH, STATE v. DUTCHIE

    969 P.2d 422 (Utah 1998)   Cited 12 times
    Finding valid waiver of Miranda rights by a fifteen-year-old who read at a second- or third-grade level

    The law of this state also recognizes that words or actions normally attendant to arrest and custody do not constitute interrogation. See State v. Wilson, 701 P.2d 1058 (Utah 1985) (per curiam) (holding that Utah Code Ann. § 77-7-6 expressly requires officers to inform suspect of reason for arrest and that suspect's incriminating response to such statements by police is not product of custodial interrogation); State v. Hayes, 860 P.2d 968 (Utah Ct.App. 1993) (same). At the scene of his arrest, Officer Webb asked Dutchie for his name and age. Dutchie replied that his name was "Daniel Sunwalker" and that he was eleven years old.

  4. State v. Hayes

    860 P.2d 968 (Utah Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 9 times

    Stubbs first told Hayes that he was under arrest because Stubbs believed that he committed the robbery at the Kar Kwik. This information is required under Utah Code Ann. § 77-7-6 (1990), which states that, "The person making the arrest shall inform the person being arrested of his intention, cause and authority to arrest him." See also State v. Wilson, 701 P.2d 1058, 1059 (Utah 1985) (merely providing arrested individual with information required by section 77-7-6 does not constitute custodial interrogation). Stubbs next informed Hayes that he believed a blue jacket and a pair of scissors were used in the commission of the robbery, and Stubbs had a search warrant to search for them. This information was provided pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 77-23-10 (1990), requiring that where appropriate, an officer shall provide notice of his or her authority and purpose in executing a search warrant.