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 2017–2025 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. Brooksgreen1 sentence2020The Decision to Have Wall Testify ¶27 Wall contends that he was “forced to take the stand in his own defense” because Counsel’s errors resulted in there being “no other witnesses available to rebut [Victim’s] testimony.” ¶28 The Supreme Court has “recognized that the accused has the ultimate authority to make certain fundamental decisions regarding the case, as to whether to plead guilty, waive a jury, testify in his or her own behalf, or take an appeal.” Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 751 (1983); see also State v. Brooks, 833 P.2d 362, 364 (Utah Ct. App. 1992) (“This fundamental right [to tes | 1 | 1 |
Jones v. Barnesgreen1 sentence2020The Decision to Have Wall Testify ¶27 Wall contends that he was “forced to take the stand in his own defense” because Counsel’s errors resulted in there being “no other witnesses available to rebut [Victim’s] testimony.” ¶28 The Supreme Court has “recognized that the accused has the ultimate authority to make certain fundamental decisions regarding the case, as to whether to plead guilty, waive a jury, testify in his or her own behalf, or take an appeal.” Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 751 (1983); see also State v. Brooks, 833 P.2d 362, 364 (Utah Ct. App. 1992) (“This fundamental right [to tes | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Jimenez
green
1 sentence2025He testified that when the children came home, he “would be working” and that Grandmother was “there all the time.” On cross-examination, Jimenez recalled the bedroom discussion about the allegations and that Penny had been upset, but he denied crying or saying that he “need[ed] to leave.” According to Jimenez, during the bedroom discussion, Penny and Lydia said that “they felt 20220662-CA 11 2025 UT App 76 State v. Jimenez uncomfortable” but apologized and said they didn’t want “to make [Jimenez] feel bad.” Jimenez said he responded by assuring them that he didn’t “feel bad” and that they “sh | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Meraz-Zamorano
green
1 sentence2025Regarding the CJC interviews, 20230067-CA 10 2025 UT App 110 State v. Meraz-Zamorano the expert also raised concerns about improper questioning techniques employed by Detective. ¶24 Meraz-Zamorano also took the stand in his own defense. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Cortez-Izarraraz
green
1 sentence2025Friend testified that Cortez and Nate “circled” around each other and were “about five feet apart” when Cortez “pull[ed] his gun out.” Friend testified that Nate taunted Cortez that he “wasn’t going to do anything with the gun and . . . to not pull it out if he wasn’t going to use it.” According to Friend, Nate walked up to Cortez, “tri[ed] to reach for his gun 20220352-CA 7 2025 UT App 116 State v. Cortez-Izarraraz and then [Nate was] shot.” Friend testified that he did not see any weapon in Nate’s hands as Cortez was pointing the gun at him. ¶16 Cortez took the stand in his own defense. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Wall
green
1 sentence2020The defendant retains ultimate authority in deciding whether or not to testify.” (quotation simplified)). ¶29 Here, Wall offers no evidence that he was effectively “forced” to testify due to Counsel’s failure to call any other 20180759-CA 14 2020 UT App 168 State v. Wall witnesses. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. S.H.
green
2 sentences2017Once a defendant has chosen to take the stand in his own defense, he must expect to be cross-examined on the issues he brings up, see Houskeeper, 2002 UT 118 , ¶ 28, 62 P.3d 444 (stating that “when a defendant waives his right not to testify, his testimony, like that of any other witness, is subject to being impeached by cross-examination”), and the trial court’s decision to allow cross-examination about other potential reasons for the separation was not an abuse of discretion. 2017Once a defendant has chosen to take the stand in his own defense, he must expect to be cross-examined on the issues he brings up, see Houskeeper, 2002 UT 118 , ¶ 28, 62 P.3d 444 (stating that “when a defendant waives his right not to testify, his testimony, like that of any other witness, is subject to being impeached by cross-examination”), and the trial court’s decision to allow cross-examination about other potential reasons for the separation was not an abuse of discretion. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
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.