jury merely because some error in Utah

2005Assuming that Haltom’s version of the testimony is correct, we do not believe that the statements were offered for the truth of the matter asserted. 3 In fact, the excluded statement would have done nothing more than support Haltom’s claim that Va-dim was the store trainer and that he was quite aware of the store policy concerning the admission of minors. ¶ 15 However, the trial court’s erroneous exclusion of Vadim’s statements does not necessarily require the reversal of Haltom’s conviction. “‘[W]e do not upset the verdict of a jury merely because some error or irregularity may have occurred,

1989As this Court noted in State v. Hutchison, 655 P.2d 635, 636 (Utah 1982): Reversal for error is not automatic.... “[W]e do not upset the verdict of a jury merely because some error or irregularity may have occurred, but will do so only if it is something substantial and prejudicial in the sense that there is a reasonable likelihood that in its absence there would have been a different result.” (Quoting State v. Urias, 609 P.2d 1326, 1329 (Utah 1980)); see also State v. Tillman, 750 P.2d 546 (Utah 1987).

2005Assuming that Haltom’s version of the testimony is correct, we do not believe that the statements were offered for the truth of the matter asserted. 3 In fact, the excluded statement would have done nothing more than support Haltom’s claim that Va-dim was the store trainer and that he was quite aware of the store policy concerning the admission of minors. ¶ 15 However, the trial court’s erroneous exclusion of Vadim’s statements does not necessarily require the reversal of Haltom’s conviction. “‘[W]e do not upset the verdict of a jury merely because some error or irregularity may have occurred,

1989As this Court noted in State v. Hutchison, 655 P.2d 635, 636 (Utah 1982): Reversal for error is not automatic.... “[W]e do not upset the verdict of a jury merely because some error or irregularity may have occurred, but will do so only if it is something substantial and prejudicial in the sense that there is a reasonable likelihood that in its absence there would have been a different result.” (Quoting State v. Urias, 609 P.2d 1326, 1329 (Utah 1980)); see also State v. Tillman, 750 P.2d 546 (Utah 1987).

2002See id. at 119 ("[EJrror is harmful [if] absent the error, there is a reasonable likelihood of a more favorable outcome for [Defendant]." (Citation and quotations omitted) (second alteration in original.)); see also State v. Kozik, 688 P.2d 459, 461 (Utah 1984) ("[Wle do not upset the verdict of a jury merely because some error or irregularity may have occurred, but will do so only if it is something substantial and prejudicial in the sense that there is a reasonable likelihood that in its absence there would have been a different result." (Quotations and citation omitted) (alteration in origi

1989As this Court noted in State v. Hutchison, 655 P.2d 635, 636 (Utah 1982): Reversal for error is not automatic.... “[W]e do not upset the verdict of a jury merely because some error or irregularity may have occurred, but will do so only if it is something substantial and prejudicial in the sense that there is a reasonable likelihood that in its absence there would have been a different result.” (Quoting State v. Urias, 609 P.2d 1326, 1329 (Utah 1980)); see also State v. Tillman, 750 P.2d 546 (Utah 1987).