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 1 courts 2001–2024 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. Pursifellgreen2 sentences2012See id. (noting that the inquiry requirement creates an "incentive ... for a trial court to conduct the appropriate review in a timely manner," which is critical because "timely judicial intervention at the pretrial stage constitutes an effective mechanism for prevention of Sixth Amendment deprivations and for the simultaneous preservation of the integrity of the adversary trial process" (internal quotation marks omitted)); Pursifell, 746 P.2d at 274 ("When a defendant is forced to stand trial with the assistance of an attorney with whom he has become embroiled in an irreconcilable conflict, h 2012See id. (noting that the inquiry requirement creates an “incentive . . . for a trial court to conduct the appropriate review in a timely manner,” which is critical because “timely judicial intervention at the pretrial stage constitutes an effective mechanism for prevention of Sixth Amendment deprivations and for the simultaneous preservation of the integrity of the adversary trial process” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Pursifell, 746 P.2d at 274 (“When a defendant is forced to stand trial with the assistance of an attorney with whom he has become embroiled in an irreconcilable conflict, | 2 | 2 |
State v. Vesseygreen2 sentences2012See id. (noting that the inquiry requirement creates an "incentive ... for a trial court to conduct the appropriate review in a timely manner," which is critical because "timely judicial intervention at the pretrial stage constitutes an effective mechanism for prevention of Sixth Amendment deprivations and for the simultaneous preservation of the integrity of the adversary trial process" (internal quotation marks omitted)); Pursifell, 746 P.2d at 274 ("When a defendant is forced to stand trial with the assistance of an attorney with whom he has become embroiled in an irreconcilable conflict, h 2012See id. (noting that the inquiry requirement creates an “incentive . . . for a trial court to conduct the appropriate review in a timely manner,” which is critical because “timely judicial intervention at the pretrial stage constitutes an effective mechanism for prevention of Sixth Amendment deprivations and for the simultaneous preservation of the integrity of the adversary trial process” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Pursifell, 746 P.2d at 274 (“When a defendant is forced to stand trial with the assistance of an attorney with whom he has become embroiled in an irreconcilable conflict, | 2 | 2 |
State v. Younggreen1 sentence2024He also argues this inquiry was a violation of due process because the (continued…) 20220407-CA 9 2024 UT App 65 State v. Anderson these physical ailments—even in the aggregate—could have affected Anderson’s competency to stand trial. ¶21 Aside from Anderson’s medical concerns, the court also knew—based on Counsel’s representation—that Anderson’s son had mentioned potential “mental health issues.” But Counsel was quick to inform the court that these were “offhand comments,” not made by a medical professional, and there was “[n]othing concrete, nothing finite, nothing substantiated” as far as a | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lebergreen2 sentences2010See Leber I, 2007 UT App 273, ¶ 10 , 167 P.3d 1091 . 2010See Leber I, 2007 UT App 273, ¶ 10 , 167 P.3d 1091 . | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Trujillogreen1 sentence2001Webster's alternative argument-that the trial court erred in concluding his wife's hearsay statements conform with the trustworthiness requirement of Rule 804(b)(5)-is likely to resurface on remand. 4 While we express no opinion on the ultimate determination made by the trial court regarding the trustworthiness of Webster's wife's statements, we do conclude that the inquiry and analysis by the trial court on this issue were insufficient. 125 Rule 804(b)(5) states, with our emphasis, that the following types of hearsay statements not falling within other exceptions may nonetheless be admitted: | 1 | 1 |
State v. Nelsongreen1 sentence2001Webster's alternative argument-that the trial court erred in concluding his wife's hearsay statements conform with the trustworthiness requirement of Rule 804(b)(5)-is likely to resurface on remand. 4 While we express no opinion on the ultimate determination made by the trial court regarding the trustworthiness of Webster's wife's statements, we do conclude that the inquiry and analysis by the trial court on this issue were insufficient. 125 Rule 804(b)(5) states, with our emphasis, that the following types of hearsay statements not falling within other exceptions may nonetheless be admitted: | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Jacobs v. State
green
2 sentences2024Moreover, even if Anderson did have a diagnosed mental disorder, “[a] defendant may be fit for trial even though his mind is otherwise unsound.” Jacobs v. State, 2001 UT 17, ¶ 16 , 20 P.3d 382 (quoting 21 Am. 2024Moreover, even if Anderson did have a diagnosed mental disorder, “[a] defendant may be fit for trial even though his mind is otherwise unsound.” Jacobs v. State, 2001 UT 17, ¶ 16 , 20 P.3d 382 (quoting 21 Am. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Anderson
green
1 sentence2024He also argues this inquiry was a violation of due process because the (continued…) 20220407-CA 9 2024 UT App 65 State v. Anderson these physical ailments—even in the aggregate—could have affected Anderson’s competency to stand trial. ¶21 Aside from Anderson’s medical concerns, the court also knew—based on Counsel’s representation—that Anderson’s son had mentioned potential “mental health issues.” But Counsel was quick to inform the court that these were “offhand comments,” not made by a medical professional, and there was “[n]othing concrete, nothing finite, nothing substantiated” as far as a | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Trujillo v. United States
green
1 sentence2001No. 1277, 98d Cong., 2d Sess. (1974), reprinted in 1974 U.S.C.C.A.N. 7051, 7066), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 833 , 119 S.Ct. 87 , 142 L.Ed.2d 69 (1998). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Norris v. West Valley City
green
1 sentence2001No. 1277, 98d Cong., 2d Sess. (1974), reprinted in 1974 U.S.C.C.A.N. 7051, 7066), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 833 , 119 S.Ct. 87 , 142 L.Ed.2d 69 (1998). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.