· 3/3/1884

Hopt v. People of Territory of Utah

Citations

110 U.S. 574
4 S. Ct. 202
28 L. Ed. 262
1884 U.S. LEXIS 1719

Syllabus

Criminal Law — Evidence—Practice—Statutes. . 1. The trial, in Utah, by triers, appointed by the court, of challenges of proposed jurors, in felony eases, must be had in the presence as well of the court as of the accused; and such presence of the aceused cannot be dispensed with. 2. The rule that hearsay evidence is incompetent to establish any specific fact which in its nature is susceptible of being proved byjfitfeses who speak from their own knowledge, reaffirmed. 3. Where, under the statute, it is for the jury to/Ofwhether the facts make a case of murder in the first degree or mjuraer in the second degree, it is error for the court to say, in its ehaxge, that the offence, by whomsoever committed, was that of murder-i^me first degree. 4. A confession freely and voluntarily made is evidence of the most satisfactory character. But the Resumption upon which weight is given to such evidence, namely thafcffin innocent man will not imperil his safety or prejudice his interests Joy an untrue statement, ceases when the confession appears to have been made, either in consequence of inducements of a temporal nature Mid out by one in authority, touching the charge preferred, or because of a threat or promise made by, or in the presence of, such person, in reference to such charge. A confession made to an officer will not be excluded from the jury merely because it appears that the accused was previously in the custody of another officer; and the court will not, as a condition precedent to the admission of such evidence, require the prosecution to call the latter, unless the circumstances render it probable that the accused held a conversation with the first officer upon the subject of a confession, or justify the belief of collusion between the officers. 5. A statute which simply enlarges the class of persons who may be competent to testify, is not ex post facto in its application to offences previously committed; for it does not

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

concluding that a Utah law which changed the previous rule that no convicted felon could testify in a criminal case was not an ex post facto law
abridgement of statutory right to be present at all stages of trial violates due process
“[Wjhere the indictment is for a felony, the trial commences at least from the time when the work of impaneling the jury begins.”
for purposes of an accused's constitutional right to be present at all stages of a trial, the trial runs from the commencement of the selection of the jury through the discharge of the jury
statute rendering competent witnesses who previously were incompetent
enlarging class of competent witnesses

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Harlan

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.