Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1987–2026 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Utah courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Fultongreen2 sentences2026See Fulton, 742 P.2d at 1215–16; see also State v. Wilcox, 808 P.2d 1028, 1032 (Utah 1991) (“[I]f a defendant fails to request a bill of particulars or make demand for the date, place, and time [of the offense] . . . and a response to either of these would have cured the claimed deficiency, then he or she will be deemed to have waived the constitutional right to adequate notice.”). 2017Id. at 1215-16 (explaining that “the failure of a defendant to seek a continuance negates any claim of surprise and amounts to a waiver of any claim of variance”). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Wilsongreen2 sentences2020See State v. Wilson, 771 P.2d 1077, 1085 (Utah Ct. App. 1989) (“Whenever the prosecution changes its position, a defendant may seek a continuance but the failure of a defendant to seek [or accept] a continuance negates any claim of surprise and amounts to a waiver of any claim of variance.”) (quotation simplified). 2002State v. Wilson, 771 P.2d 1077, 1085 (Utah Ct.App.1989) (second and third alterations in original) (citation omitted); accord State v. Fulton, 742 P.2d 1208, 1215-16 (Utah 1987). (14 Lester did not request a continuance. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Wilcoxgreen1 sentence2026See Fulton, 742 P.2d at 1215–16; see also State v. Wilcox, 808 P.2d 1028, 1032 (Utah 1991) (“[I]f a defendant fails to request a bill of particulars or make demand for the date, place, and time [of the offense] . . . and a response to either of these would have cured the claimed deficiency, then he or she will be deemed to have waived the constitutional right to adequate notice.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Knightgreen1 sentence1987See, e.g., State v. Knight, 734 P.2d 913, 918 (Utah 1987). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||