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 2015–2026 3 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. Gutierrezgreen1 sentence2019“When a trial court bases its ultimate conclusions concerning the waiver of defendant’s Miranda rights, upon essentially undisputed facts, in particular the transcript of an officer’s colloquy with defendant, its conclusions present questions of law which we review under a correction of error standard.” State v. Gutierrez, 864 P.2d 894, 898 (Utah Ct. App. 1993) (quotation simplified). ¶17 Second, Smith asserts that the trial court erred in declining to instruct the jury on the affirmative defense of compulsion. “[W]e review a court’s ruling on a proposed jury instruction for correctness . . . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Farmergreen2 sentences2025But see, e.g., United States v. Yellowhorse, 86 F.4th 1304, 1309 (10th Cir. 2023) (continued…) 20210913-CA 16 2025 UT App 57 State v. Farmer ¶39 Next, Farmer contends that the trial court erred in not instructing the jury on the affirmative defense of compulsion for the obstructing justice charge. 2025But see, e.g., United States v. Yellowhorse, 86 F.4th 1304 , 1309 (10th Cir. 2023) (continued…) 20210913-CA 16 2025 UT App 57 State v. Farmer ¶39 Next, Farmer contends that the trial court erred in not instructing the jury on the affirmative defense of compulsion for the obstructing justice charge. | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Yellowhorsegreen2 sentences2025But see, e.g., United States v. Yellowhorse, 86 F.4th 1304, 1309 (10th Cir. 2023) (continued…) 20210913-CA 16 2025 UT App 57 State v. Farmer ¶39 Next, Farmer contends that the trial court erred in not instructing the jury on the affirmative defense of compulsion for the obstructing justice charge. 2025But see, e.g., United States v. Yellowhorse, 86 F.4th 1304 , 1309 (10th Cir. 2023) (continued…) 20210913-CA 16 2025 UT App 57 State v. Farmer ¶39 Next, Farmer contends that the trial court erred in not instructing the jury on the affirmative defense of compulsion for the obstructing justice charge. | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Maestas
green
2 sentences2019“When a trial court bases its ultimate conclusions concerning the waiver of defendant’s Miranda rights, upon essentially undisputed facts, in particular the transcript of an officer’s colloquy with defendant, its conclusions present questions of law which we review under a correction of error standard.” State v. Gutierrez, 864 P.2d 894, 898 (Utah Ct. App. 1993) (quotation simplified). ¶17 Second, Smith asserts that the trial court erred in declining to instruct the jury on the affirmative defense of compulsion. “[W]e review a court’s ruling on a proposed jury instruction for correctness . . . 2019“When a trial court bases its ultimate conclusions concerning the waiver of defendant’s Miranda rights, upon essentially undisputed facts, in particular the transcript of an officer’s colloquy with defendant, its conclusions present questions of law which we review under a correction of error standard.” State v. Gutierrez, 864 P.2d 894, 898 (Utah Ct. App. 1993) (quotation simplified). ¶17 Second, Smith asserts that the trial court erred in declining to instruct the jury on the affirmative defense of compulsion. “[W]e review a court’s ruling on a proposed jury instruction for correctness . . . | 2 | 2015–2019 |
Peng v. Meeks
green
2 sentences2026“We review challenges to jury instructions under a correctness standard.” Meeks v. Peng, 2024 UT 5, ¶ 33 , 545 P.3d 226 (quotation simplified). 5 “When reviewing jury instructions, we must consider the challenged instruction in context.” Id. (quotation simplified). 2026“We review challenges to jury instructions under a correctness standard.” Meeks v. Peng, 2024 UT 5, ¶ 33 , 545 P.3d 226 (quotation simplified). 5 “When reviewing jury instructions, we must consider the challenged instruction in context.” Id. (quotation simplified). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Benson
green
2 sentences2015Jury Instruction Claim 112 Maama first contends that "the trial court erred by failing to properly instruct the jury on the affirmative defense of compulsion." - Specifically, Maama argues that "(allthough the trial judge allowed a compulsion fury instruction" (Instruction 61) on the aggravated robbery charge, the "instructions given failed to instruct the jury about the burden the affirmative instruction placed on the prosecution." The State responds that Maama "was not entitled to a compulsion instruction at all" and that, in any event, "the instruction was sufficient." "Generally, we review 2015Jury Instruction Claim 112 Maama first contends that "the trial court erred by failing to properly instruct the jury on the affirmative defense of compulsion." - Specifically, Maama argues that "(allthough the trial judge allowed a compulsion fury instruction" (Instruction 61) on the aggravated robbery charge, the "instructions given failed to instruct the jury about the burden the affirmative instruction placed on the prosecution." The State responds that Maama "was not entitled to a compulsion instruction at all" and that, in any event, "the instruction was sufficient." "Generally, we review | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Berriel
green
2 sentences2015Jury Instruction Claim 112 Maama first contends that "the trial court erred by failing to properly instruct the jury on the affirmative defense of compulsion." - Specifically, Maama argues that "(allthough the trial judge allowed a compulsion fury instruction" (Instruction 61) on the aggravated robbery charge, the "instructions given failed to instruct the jury about the burden the affirmative instruction placed on the prosecution." The State responds that Maama "was not entitled to a compulsion instruction at all" and that, in any event, "the instruction was sufficient." "Generally, we review 2015Jury Instruction Claim 112 Maama first contends that "the trial court erred by failing to properly instruct the jury on the affirmative defense of compulsion." - Specifically, Maama argues that "(allthough the trial judge allowed a compulsion fury instruction" (Instruction 61) on the aggravated robbery charge, the "instructions given failed to instruct the jury about the burden the affirmative instruction placed on the prosecution." The State responds that Maama "was not entitled to a compulsion instruction at all" and that, in any event, "the instruction was sufficient." "Generally, we review | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.