harmful error in Utah

2018"The plain error standard of review requires an appellant to show the existence of a harmful error that should have been obvious to the district court." State v. Kennedy , 2015 UT App 152 , ¶ 23, 354 P.3d 775 (quotation simplified).

2018"The plain error standard of review requires an appellant to show the existence of a harmful error that should have been obvious to the district court." State v. Kennedy , 2015 UT App 152 , ¶ 23, 354 P.3d 775 (quotation simplified).

2018"To establish that the error should have been obvious to the trial court, the appellant must show that the law governing the error was clear at the time the alleged error was made." State v. Davis , 2013 UT App 228 , ¶ 32, 311 P.3d 538 (brackets, citation, and internal quotation marks omitted).

2018"To establish that the error should have been obvious to the trial court, the appellant must show that the law governing the error was clear at the time the alleged error was made." State v. Davis , 2013 UT App 228 , ¶ 32, 311 P.3d 538 (brackets, citation, and internal quotation marks omitted).

2025“The plain error standard of review requires an appellant to show the existence of a harmful error that should have been obvious to the district court.” State v. Gallegos, 2018 UT App 112, ¶ 12 , 427 P.3d 578 .

2025“The plain error standard of review requires an appellant to show the existence of a harmful error that should have been obvious to the district court.” State v. Gallegos, 2018 UT App 112, ¶ 12 , 427 P.3d 578 .

2021However, they concede that this particular 20190548-CA 10 2021 UT App 113 H&P Investments v. iLux Capital contention was not preserved and therefore ask us to review it for plain error.2 “To obtain relief via the plain-error doctrine, an appellant must show the existence of a harmful error that should have been obvious to the district court.” Thomas v. Mattena, 2017 UT App 81, ¶ 9 , 397 P.3d 856 (cleaned up). ¶22 Appellants lastly contend that the district court erred in concluding that Buchanan and Bollinger were personally liable for the damages.

2021However, they concede that this particular 20190548-CA 10 2021 UT App 113 H&P Investments v. iLux Capital contention was not preserved and therefore ask us to review it for plain error.2 “To obtain relief via the plain-error doctrine, an appellant must show the existence of a harmful error that should have been obvious to the district court.” Thomas v. Mattena, 2017 UT App 81, ¶ 9 , 397 P.3d 856 (cleaned up). ¶22 Appellants lastly contend that the district court erred in concluding that Buchanan and Bollinger were personally liable for the damages.

2020“The plain error standard of review requires an appellant to show the existence of a harmful error that should have been obvious to the district court.” State v. Hansen, 2020 UT App 17, ¶ 10 , 460 P.3d 560 (quotation simplified).

2020“The plain error standard of review requires an appellant to show the existence of a harmful error that should have been obvious to the district court.” State v. Hansen, 2020 UT App 17, ¶ 10 , 460 P.3d 560 (quotation simplified).

2018"An ineffective assistance of counsel claim raised for the first time on appeal presents a question of law." State v. Clark , 2004 UT 25 , ¶ 6, 89 P.3d 162 . ¶33 Lastly, Defendant contends that "the cumulative effect of the several errors committed in the trial court deprived [him] of his right to a fair trial." "We will reverse a conviction under this doctrine when 'the cumulative effect of the several errors undermines our confidence ... that a fair trial was had.' " State v. Lomu , 2014 UT App 42 , ¶ 7, 321 P.3d 235 (omission in original) (quoting State v. Dunn , 850 P.2d 1201 , 1229 (Utah

2018"An ineffective assistance of counsel claim raised for the first time on appeal presents a question of law." State v. Clark , 2004 UT 25 , ¶ 6, 89 P.3d 162 . ¶33 Lastly, Defendant contends that "the cumulative effect of the several errors committed in the trial court deprived [him] of his right to a fair trial." "We will reverse a conviction under this doctrine when 'the cumulative effect of the several errors undermines our confidence ... that a fair trial was had.' " State v. Lomu , 2014 UT App 42 , ¶ 7, 321 P.3d 235 (omission in original) (quoting State v. Dunn , 850 P.2d 1201 , 1229 (Utah

2018An error is prejudicial when "absent the error, there is a reasonable likelihood of a more favorable outcome for the appellant, or phrased differently, our confidence in the verdict is undermined." Dunn , 850 P.2d at 1208 -09 . ¶58 Even assuming that the admission of the rule 404(b) evidence-Sister's testimony-was both erroneous and harmful, trial counsel invited any error by stipulating before trial "that [the rule 404(b) ] evidence will be reciprocal in each case. [E]ach victim will testify in the other victim's case." "The doctrine of invited error prohibits a party from setting up an error

2018An error is prejudicial when "absent the error, there is a reasonable likelihood of a more favorable outcome for the appellant, or phrased differently, our confidence in the verdict is undermined." Dunn , 850 P.2d at 1208 -09 . ¶58 Even assuming that the admission of the rule 404(b) evidence-Sister's testimony-was both erroneous and harmful, trial counsel invited any error by stipulating before trial "that [the rule 404(b) ] evidence will be reciprocal in each case. [E]ach victim will testify in the other victim's case." "The doctrine of invited error prohibits a party from setting up an error

2018"An ineffective assistance of counsel claim raised for the first time on appeal presents a question of law." State v. Clark , 2004 UT 25 , ¶ 6, 89 P.3d 162 . ¶33 Lastly, Defendant contends that "the cumulative effect of the several errors committed in the trial court deprived [him] of his right to a fair trial." "We will reverse a conviction under this doctrine when 'the cumulative effect of the several errors undermines our confidence ... that a fair trial was had.' " State v. Lomu , 2014 UT App 42 , ¶ 7, 321 P.3d 235 (omission in original) (quoting State v. Dunn , 850 P.2d 1201 , 1229 (Utah

2018"An ineffective assistance of counsel claim raised for the first time on appeal presents a question of law." State v. Clark , 2004 UT 25 , ¶ 6, 89 P.3d 162 . ¶33 Lastly, Defendant contends that "the cumulative effect of the several errors committed in the trial court deprived [him] of his right to a fair trial." "We will reverse a conviction under this doctrine when 'the cumulative effect of the several errors undermines our confidence ... that a fair trial was had.' " State v. Lomu , 2014 UT App 42 , ¶ 7, 321 P.3d 235 (omission in original) (quoting State v. Dunn , 850 P.2d 1201 , 1229 (Utah

1999“Harmful error occurs where ‘the likelihood of a different outcome in the absence of the error is “sufficiently high so as to undermine confidence in the verdict.” ’ ” Id. (quoting Jouflas, 927 P.2d at 174 (quoting State v. Knight, 734 P.2d 913, 920 (Utah 1987))). ¶ 10 A trial court’s ruling concerning a jury instruction is reviewed for correctness.

1997Harmful error occurs where “the likelihood of a different outcome in the absence of the error is ‘sufficiently high so as to undermine confidence in the verdict.’ ” Id. at 174 (quoting State v. Knight, 734 P.2d 913, 920 (Utah 1987)).

2026As to the first claim, (continued…) 20230151-CA 16 2026 UT App 7 State v. Elton ¶39 “The plain error standard of review requires an appellant to show the existence of a harmful error that should have been obvious to the trial court.” State v. Ringstad, 2018 UT App 66, ¶ 62 , 424 P.3d 1052 (quotation simplified).

2026However, “the harm factor in the plain error analysis is equivalent to the prejudice test applied in assessing claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.” State v. Bair, 2012 UT App 106, ¶ 35 , 275 P.3d 1050 (quotation simplified).

2026However, “the harm factor in the plain error analysis is equivalent to the prejudice test applied in assessing claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.” State v. Bair, 2012 UT App 106, ¶ 35 , 275 P.3d 1050 (quotation simplified).

2024“The plain error standard of review requires an appellant to show the existence of a harmful error that should have been obvious to the district court.” State v. Ringstad, 2018 UT App 66, ¶ 32 , 424 P.3d 1052 (cleaned up), cert. denied, 425 P.3d 802 (Utah 2018).

2022And “the plain error standard of review requires an appellant to show the existence of a harmful error that should have been obvious to the district court.” State v. Naves, 2020 UT App 156, ¶ 9 , 477 P.3d 28 (cleaned up).

2022And “the plain error standard of review requires an appellant to show the existence of a harmful error that should have been obvious to the district court.” State v. Naves, 2020 UT App 156, ¶ 9 , 477 P.3d 28 (cleaned up).

2022On the ineffective assistance claims, because those are “raised for the first time on appeal, there is no lower court ruling to review and we must decide whether [Grover] was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel as a matter of law.” Layton City v. Carr, 2014 UT App 227, ¶ 6 , 336 P.3d 587 (quotation simplified).

2022On the ineffective assistance claims, because those are “raised for the first time on appeal, there is no lower court ruling to review and we must decide whether [Grover] was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel as a matter of law.” Layton City v. Carr, 2014 UT App 227, ¶ 6 , 336 P.3d 587 (quotation simplified).

2021However, they concede that this particular 20190548-CA 10 2021 UT App 113 H&P Investments v. iLux Capital contention was not preserved and therefore ask us to review it for plain error.2 “To obtain relief via the plain-error doctrine, an appellant must show the existence of a harmful error that should have been obvious to the district court.” Thomas v. Mattena, 2017 UT App 81, ¶ 9 , 397 P.3d 856 (cleaned up). ¶22 Appellants lastly contend that the district court erred in concluding that Buchanan and Bollinger were personally liable for the damages.

2020“The plain error standard of review requires an 20190235-CA 5 2020 UT App 135 State v. Anderson appellant to show the existence of a harmful error that should have been obvious to the district court.” State v. Hansen, 2020 UT App 17, ¶ 10 , 460 P.3d 560 (cleaned up). ¶14 Third, Anderson argues that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance by providing the State with a copy of a psychosexual evaluation containing information that the State used to impeach Anderson on cross-examination.

2020“The plain error standard of review requires an appellant to show the existence of a harmful error that should have been obvious to the district court.” State v. Robinson, 2018 UT App 103, ¶ 20 , 427 P.3d 474 (quotation simplified). 3.

2020“The plain error standard of review requires an appellant to show the existence of a harmful error that should have been obvious to the district court.” State v. Robinson, 2018 UT App 103, ¶ 20 , 427 P.3d 474 (quotation simplified). 3.

2019(Citing State v. Cruz, 2016 UT App 234 , ¶¶ 36–41, 387 P.3d 618 (holding that video recordings of children’s CJC interviews are not allowed in jury deliberations).) ¶35 “Under the invited error doctrine, we decline to engage in plain error review when counsel made an affirmative statement that led the court to commit the error.” State v. Ring, 2018 UT 19, ¶ 20 , 424 P.3d 845 (quotation simplified). 5 Rhodes’s counsel told the court he thought it was important for the jury to watch the interviews during its deliberations and wanted to make sure it had plenty of time to do so.

2019(Citing State v. Cruz, 2016 UT App 234 , ¶¶ 36–41, 387 P.3d 618 (holding that video recordings of children’s CJC interviews are not allowed in jury deliberations).) ¶35 “Under the invited error doctrine, we decline to engage in plain error review when counsel made an affirmative statement that led the court to commit the error.” State v. Ring, 2018 UT 19, ¶ 20 , 424 P.3d 845 (quotation simplified). 5 Rhodes’s counsel told the court he thought it was important for the jury to watch the interviews during its deliberations and wanted to make sure it had plenty of time to do so.

2019(Citing State v. Cruz, 2016 UT App 234 , ¶¶ 36–41, 387 P.3d 618 (holding that video recordings of children’s CJC interviews are not allowed in jury deliberations).) ¶35 “Under the invited error doctrine, we decline to engage in plain error review when counsel made an affirmative statement that led the court to commit the error.” State v. Ring, 2018 UT 19, ¶ 20 , 424 P.3d 845 (quotation simplified). 5 Rhodes’s counsel told the court he thought it was important for the jury to watch the interviews during its deliberations and wanted to make sure it had plenty of time to do so.

2019(Citing State v. Cruz, 2016 UT App 234 , ¶¶ 36–41, 387 P.3d 618 (holding that video recordings of children’s CJC interviews are not allowed in jury deliberations).) ¶35 “Under the invited error doctrine, we decline to engage in plain error review when counsel made an affirmative statement that led the court to commit the error.” State v. Ring, 2018 UT 19, ¶ 20 , 424 P.3d 845 (quotation simplified). 5 Rhodes’s counsel told the court he thought it was important for the jury to watch the interviews during its deliberations and wanted to make sure it had plenty of time to do so.

2017Because there was no meeting of the minds on this issue, the Bad Lands Loan was not an enforceable contract.” In short, she claims that a failure to come to an agreement regarding personal liability for a business loan renders the remainder of the loan contract invalid. ¶ 11 “It is fundamental that a meeting of the minds on the integral features of an agreement is essential to the formation of a contract.” Nielsen v. Gold’s Gym, 2003 UT 37, ¶ 11 , 78 P.3d 600 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

2017Because there was no meeting of the minds on this issue, the Bad Lands Loan was not an enforceable contract.” In short, she claims that a failure to come to an agreement regarding personal liability for a business loan renders the remainder of the loan contract invalid. ¶ 11 “It is fundamental that a meeting of the minds on the integral features of an agreement is essential to the formation of a contract.” Nielsen v. Gold’s Gym, 2003 UT 37, ¶ 11 , 78 P.3d 600 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

2016This is precisely the sort of "diseretion-ary ruling that compounds a previous harmful error of law [and thus] constitutes an abuse of discretion." See State v. Norris, 2002 UT App 305, ¶ 12 , 57 P.3d 238 .

2016This is precisely the sort of "diseretion-ary ruling that compounds a previous harmful error of law [and thus] constitutes an abuse of discretion." See State v. Norris, 2002 UT App 305, ¶ 12 , 57 P.3d 238 .