insufficiency claim in Utah

2025But Hernandez never raised a “Robbins claim with regard to [Employee’s] testimony: at no point did he assert that [Employee’s] testimony should be disregarded in an insufficiency analysis due to inherent improbability, and at no point did he cite Robbins or any subsequent similar case law.” Mayorga, 2024 UT App 182, ¶ 30 .

2024From these facts, he argues that “[t]he context of [his] 20230464-CA 12 2024 UT App 182 State v. Mayorga case made clear that the issue in dispute was [Elise’s] credibility.” We see the matter differently. ¶32 Mayorga’s motion to arrest judgment did use the phrase “inherently improbable.” But in that motion, Mayorga did not assert that Elise’s testimony was inherently improbable; instead, he asserted that the “verdicts” were inherently improbable.

2025Accordingly, we conclude that “this particular challenge was not presented to the trial court and was not preserved for appeal.” Doyle, 2018 UT App 239, ¶ 19 . 7 ¶26 Thus, we are left with Hernandez’s general insufficiency challenge to the denial of his directed verdict motion.

2024State v. Jok, 2021 UT 35, ¶ 18 , 493 P.3d 665 . ¶23 In sum, these cases reflect that judges come to a trial generally well-versed in the law while jurors generally do not, and that judges are not subject to many of the same concerns about prejudices and improper influences as jurors.

2024State v. Jok, 2021 UT 35, ¶ 18 , 493 P.3d 665 . ¶23 In sum, these cases reflect that judges come to a trial generally well-versed in the law while jurors generally do not, and that judges are not subject to many of the same concerns about prejudices and improper influences as jurors.

2020Rev. 1575 , 1617 (1979). 20180842-CA 19 2020 UT App 78 State v. Rogers 197 P.3d 628 ; see also Utah Code Ann. § 76-2-202 (LexisNexis 2016). ¶47 The State argues that we cannot consider this insufficiency claim because Rogers failed to raise it in the district court.

2020As discussed above, absent a valid exception we will not consider an issue on appeal unless the defendant has preserved it below by lodging “a timely and specific objection.” State v. Winfield, 2006 UT 4, ¶ 27 , 128 P.3d 1171 (quotation simplified). “[W]here a motion for a directed verdict makes general assertions but fails to assert the specific argument raised on appeal, the directed verdict motion itself is insufficient to preserve the more specific argument for appeal.” State v. Bosquez, 2012 UT App 89, ¶ 8 , 275 P.3d 1032 .

2020As discussed above, absent a valid exception we will not consider an issue on appeal unless the defendant has preserved it below by lodging “a timely and specific objection.” State v. Winfield, 2006 UT 4, ¶ 27 , 128 P.3d 1171 (quotation simplified). “[W]here a motion for a directed verdict makes general assertions but fails to assert the specific argument raised on appeal, the directed verdict motion itself is insufficient to preserve the more specific argument for appeal.” State v. Bosquez, 2012 UT App 89, ¶ 8 , 275 P.3d 1032 .

2020Rev. 1575 , 1617 (1979). 20180842-CA 19 2020 UT App 78 State v. Rogers 197 P.3d 628 ; see also Utah Code Ann. § 76-2-202 (LexisNexis 2016). ¶47 The State argues that we cannot consider this insufficiency claim because Rogers failed to raise it in the district court.

2020As discussed above, absent a valid exception we will not consider an issue on appeal unless the defendant has preserved it below by lodging “a timely and specific objection.” State v. Winfield, 2006 UT 4, ¶ 27 , 128 P.3d 1171 (quotation simplified). “[W]here a motion for a directed verdict makes general assertions but fails to assert the specific argument raised on appeal, the directed verdict motion itself is insufficient to preserve the more specific argument for appeal.” State v. Bosquez, 2012 UT App 89, ¶ 8 , 275 P.3d 1032 .

2020As discussed above, absent a valid exception we will not consider an issue on appeal unless the defendant has preserved it below by lodging “a timely and specific objection.” State v. Winfield, 2006 UT 4, ¶ 27 , 128 P.3d 1171 (quotation simplified). “[W]here a motion for a directed verdict makes general assertions but fails to assert the specific argument raised on appeal, the directed verdict motion itself is insufficient to preserve the more specific argument for appeal.” State v. Bosquez, 2012 UT App 89, ¶ 8 , 275 P.3d 1032 .

2019The burden of bringing an insufficiency claim is high, State v. White , 2011 UT App 162 , ¶ 8, 258 P.3d 594 , and here, Alires's argument fails because any amount of strangulation is sufficient evidence of force adequate to cause serious bodily harm, see supra ¶ 8 n.4.

2019The burden of bringing an insufficiency claim is high, State v. White , 2011 UT App 162 , ¶ 8, 258 P.3d 594 , and here, Alires's argument fails because any amount of strangulation is sufficient evidence of force adequate to cause serious bodily harm, see supra ¶ 8 n.4.