34 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2026 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. Hamiltongreen2 sentences2017The Accountant also argues that the Buyers never alleged fraudulent nondisclosure as a cause of action and thus are not entitled to an instruction on that claim. ¶67 The district court rejected the Buyers’ proposed instruction on the ground that the court had already “effectively ... determined there was no duty” when it dismissed the Buyers’ negligent misrepresentation claim at summary judgment. ¶68 “Whether the trial court’s refusal to give a proposed jury instruction constitutes error is a question of law, which we review for correctness.” State v. Hamilton, 827 P.2d 232, 238 (Utah 1992). 2012"Where, as here, a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is raised for the first time on appeal without a prior evidentiary hearing, it presents a question of law." State v. Bryant, 965 P.2d 539, 542 (Utah Ct.App.1998). ¶ 10 Last, Marchet argues that the trial court's refusal to give Marchet's requested jury instruction on ignorance or mistake constitutes reversible error. 4 "Whether the trial court's refusal to give a proposed jury instruction constitutes error is a question of law, which we review for correctness." State v. Hamilton, 827 P.2d 232, 238 (Utah 1992). | 14 | 14 |
State v. Bluffgreen2 sentences2011See State v. Tanner, 2011 UT App 39, 15 , 248 P.3d 61 . 113 Fifth, Santonio argues that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on the definition of "attempt." "Whether the trial court's refusal to give a proposed jury instruction constitutes error is a question of law, which we review for correctness." State v. Bluff 2002 UT 66, ¶ 21 , 52 P.3d 1210 (internal quotation marks omitted). 9 ANALYSIS I. 2011See State v. Tanner, 2011 UT App 39, 15 , 248 P.3d 61 . 113 Fifth, Santonio argues that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on the definition of "attempt." "Whether the trial court's refusal to give a proposed jury instruction constitutes error is a question of law, which we review for correctness." State v. Bluff 2002 UT 66, ¶ 21 , 52 P.3d 1210 (internal quotation marks omitted). 9 ANALYSIS I. | 3 | 4 |
State v. Robertsongreen2 sentences2016And there was ample evidence from which the jury could conclude that it was objectively unreasonable for Child not to check for traffic before entering the roadway. 5 This evidence was more than suffi-clent for the jury to conclude that Child's unreasonable behavior made him primarily responsible for his own injuries. 6 ¶ 18 Although Bol concedes that "[t]he trial court correctly instructed the jury. on the ... standard of care applicable to [Child]," she claims that the jury instructions conflicted with one another and thus confused the jury such that it was left to- devise its own standard o 2000The trial court denied defendant's request, reading the instruction to require the jury to draw all inferences in favor of defendant's innocence. 152 The trial court must "instruct the jury on the law applicable to the facts of the case." State v. Robertson, 932 P.2d 1219, 1231 (Utah 1997). " 'Whether the trial court's refusal to give a proposed jury instruction constitutes error is a question of law, which we may review for correctness.!" Id. (quoting State v. Hamilton, 827 P.2d 232, 238 (Utah 1992)) (citations omitted). | 3 | 3 |
Ramon by and Through Ramon v. Farrgreen2 sentences2001Corp., 850 P.2d 447, 452 (Utah 1993); Ramon v. Farr, 770 P.2d 131, 133 (Utah 1989). 1992Ramon v. Farr, 770 P.2d 131, 133 (Utah 1989); Western Kane County Special Serv. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Maestasgreen2 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 . . . | 1 | 5 |
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 |
State v. Larsengreen1 sentence2013Under this standard, we will not reverse unless the decision exceeds the limits of reasonability." State v. Larsen, 865 P.2d 1355, 1361 (Utah 1993) (citations omitted); see also State v. Maestas, 2012 UT 46, ¶ 122 , 299 P.3d 892 . 121 Campos also challenges the aggravated assault conviction by arguing that he was entitled to a lesser included offense Jury instruction on threatening with a dangerous weapon. "[Wle review a court's ruling on a proposed jury instruction for correctness...." Maestas, 2012 UT 46, ¶ 148 , 299 P.3d 892 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bryantgreen1 sentence2012"Where, as here, a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is raised for the first time on appeal without a prior evidentiary hearing, it presents a question of law." State v. Bryant, 965 P.2d 539, 542 (Utah Ct.App.1998). ¶ 10 Last, Marchet argues that the trial court's refusal to give Marchet's requested jury instruction on ignorance or mistake constitutes reversible error. 4 "Whether the trial court's refusal to give a proposed jury instruction constitutes error is a question of law, which we review for correctness." State v. Hamilton, 827 P.2d 232, 238 (Utah 1992). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Preecegreen1 sentence2011Indeed, contrary to Defendant's assertion that subsection (1)(a) of the DUI statute creates a conclusive presumption of guilt if a person's BAC is measured at or above the proscribed level during a subsequent chemical test, Defendant remained free to "challenge the accuracy of the test on any relevant ground," State v. Preece, 971 P.2d 1, 6 (Utah Ct.App.1998) (emphasis added) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Tannergreen2 sentences2011See State v. Tanner, 2011 UT App 39, 15 , 248 P.3d 61 . 113 Fifth, Santonio argues that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on the definition of "attempt." "Whether the trial court's refusal to give a proposed jury instruction constitutes error is a question of law, which we review for correctness." State v. Bluff 2002 UT 66, ¶ 21 , 52 P.3d 1210 (internal quotation marks omitted). 9 ANALYSIS I. 2011See State v. Tanner, 2011 UT App 39, 15 , 248 P.3d 61 . 113 Fifth, Santonio argues that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury on the definition of "attempt." "Whether the trial court's refusal to give a proposed jury instruction constitutes error is a question of law, which we review for correctness." State v. Bluff 2002 UT 66, ¶ 21 , 52 P.3d 1210 (internal quotation marks omitted). 9 ANALYSIS I. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Crickgreen1 sentence2005In considering a defendant’s request for a lesser included offense instruction, we “view the evidence and inferences that can be drawn from it in the light most favorable to the defense.” State v. Crick, 675 P.2d 527, 539 (Utah 1983). | 1 | 1 |
Ong International (U.S.A.) Inc. v. 11th Avenue Corp.green1 sentence2001Corp., 850 P.2d 447, 452 (Utah 1993); Ramon v. Farr, 770 P.2d 131, 133 (Utah 1989). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Widdisongreen2 sentences2001See State v. Patience, 944 P.2d 381, 384 (Utah Ct.App.1997) (stating "whether the State is entitled to rescind the plea agreement, [is al question| ] of law"). " 'We review questions of law for correctness, according no deference to the trial court's conclusions." Id. at 884-85 (quoting State v. Yates, 918 P.2d 136, 188 (Utah Ct.App.1996)). 111 Next, defendants argue the trial court erred by refusing to include defendants' good faith defense instruction regarding the communications fraud counts to the jury. "'"Whether the trial court's refusal to give a proposed jury instruction constitutes er 2001See State v. Patience, 944 P.2d 381, 384 (Utah Ct.App.1997) (stating "whether the State is entitled to rescind the plea agreement, [is al question| ] of law"). " 'We review questions of law for correctness, according no deference to the trial court's conclusions." Id. at 884-85 (quoting State v. Yates, 918 P.2d 136, 188 (Utah Ct.App.1996)). 111 Next, defendants argue the trial court erred by refusing to include defendants' good faith defense instruction regarding the communications fraud counts to the jury. "'"Whether the trial court's refusal to give a proposed jury instruction constitutes er | 1 | 1 |
State v. Yatesgreen1 sentence2001See State v. Patience, 944 P.2d 381, 384 (Utah Ct.App.1997) (stating "whether the State is entitled to rescind the plea agreement, [is al question| ] of law"). " 'We review questions of law for correctness, according no deference to the trial court's conclusions." Id. at 884-85 (quoting State v. Yates, 918 P.2d 136, 188 (Utah Ct.App.1996)). 111 Next, defendants argue the trial court erred by refusing to include defendants' good faith defense instruction regarding the communications fraud counts to the jury. "'"Whether the trial court's refusal to give a proposed jury instruction constitutes er | 1 | 1 |
Cornia v. Wilcoxgreen1 sentence2001See Cornia v. Wilcox, 898 P.2d 1379, 1386 (Utah 1995). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Patiencegreen2 sentences2001See State v. Patience, 944 P.2d 381, 384 (Utah Ct.App.1997) (stating "whether the State is entitled to rescind the plea agreement, [is al question| ] of law"). " 'We review questions of law for correctness, according no deference to the trial court's conclusions." Id. at 884-85 (quoting State v. Yates, 918 P.2d 136, 188 (Utah Ct.App.1996)). 111 Next, defendants argue the trial court erred by refusing to include defendants' good faith defense instruction regarding the communications fraud counts to the jury. "'"Whether the trial court's refusal to give a proposed jury instruction constitutes er 2001See State v. Patience, 944 P.2d 381, 384 (Utah Ct.App.1997) (stating "whether the State is entitled to rescind the plea agreement, [is al question| ] of law"). " 'We review questions of law for correctness, according no deference to the trial court's conclusions." Id. at 884-85 (quoting State v. Yates, 918 P.2d 136, 188 (Utah Ct.App.1996)). 111 Next, defendants argue the trial court erred by refusing to include defendants' good faith defense instruction regarding the communications fraud counts to the jury. "'"Whether the trial court's refusal to give a proposed jury instruction constitutes er | 1 | 1 |
State v. Sessionsgreen2 sentences1997However, “[i]t is not error to refuse a proposed instruction if the point is properly covered in the other instructions.” State v. Sessions, 645 P.2d 643, 647 (Utah 1982) (citations omitted). 1997However, "[i]t is not error to refuse a proposed instruction if the point is properly covered in the other instructions." State v. Sessions, 645 P.2d 643, 647 (Utah 1982) (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Smithgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Knillgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Lujangreen | 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. Stringham
green
2 sentences2003"Whether the trial court's refusal to give a proposed jury instruction constitutes error is a question of law, which we ... review for correctness." State v. Stringham, 2001 UT App 13, ¶ 11 , 17 P.3d 1153 (quotations and citations omitted). 2003"Whether the trial court's refusal to give a proposed jury instruction constitutes error is a question of law, which we ... review for correctness." State v. Stringham, 2001 UT App 13, ¶ 11 , 17 P.3d 1153 (quotations and citations omitted). | 2 | 2003–2014 |
State v. Miller
green
2 sentences2026“When a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is raised for the first time on appeal, there is no lower court ruling to review and we must decide whether the defendant was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel as a matter of law.” State v. Miller, 2023 UT App 85, ¶ 22 , 535 P.3d 390 (cleaned up). 20230512-CA 7 2026 UT App 3 State v. MacBeth ANALYSIS I. 2026“When a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is raised for the first time on appeal, there is no lower court ruling to review and we must decide whether the defendant was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel as a matter of law.” State v. Miller, 2023 UT App 85, ¶ 22 , 535 P.3d 390 (cleaned up). 20230512-CA 7 2026 UT App 3 State v. MacBeth ANALYSIS I. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Macbeth
neutral
1 sentence2026“When a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is raised for the first time on appeal, there is no lower court ruling to review and we must decide whether the defendant was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel as a matter of law.” State v. Miller, 2023 UT App 85, ¶ 22 , 535 P.3d 390 (cleaned up). 20230512-CA 7 2026 UT App 3 State v. MacBeth ANALYSIS I. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Rodriguez
green
1 sentence2025During the State’s cross-examination, Tenant admitted that she typically wears glasses but wasn’t wearing them when she came out of her room. 20230723-CA 5 2025 UT App 84 State v. Rodriguez ¶14 Before trial, defense counsel submitted a proposed jury instruction that would allow the jury to convict Rodriguez of the lesser included offense of kidnapping for each of the aggravated kidnapping charges. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. McDonald
green
1 sentence2025The record contains a proposed jury instruction stating, “Unless these instructions give a definition, you should give all words their usual and ordinary meaning.” But that instruction was omitted from the set ultimately given to the jury. 20230669-CA 7 2025 UT App 127 State v. McDonald punching another person[,] is not likely to cause death or serious bodily injury. . . . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Berger v. Ogden Regional Medical Center
green
1 sentence2020Res Ipsa Loquitur ¶17 The Bergers contend that the district court erred when it ruled that they “did not establish a prima facie case for res ipsa loquitur and further erred when it failed to approve the proposed jury instruction.” The Bergers’ contention hinges on their assertion that Bonnie’s injury “was of a kind that, in the ordinary course of events, would not have happened if due care had been observed.” This assertion, in turn, rests on the premise that “it is within the knowledge and experience of laypersons that a person with a healthy brain does not usually go into the operating room | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Morgan v. INTERMOUNTAIN HEALTH CARE, INC.
green
2 sentences2020Res Ipsa Loquitur ¶17 The Bergers contend that the district court erred when it ruled that they “did not establish a prima facie case for res ipsa loquitur and further erred when it failed to approve the proposed jury instruction.” The Bergers’ contention hinges on their assertion that Bonnie’s injury “was of a kind that, in the ordinary course of events, would not have happened if due care had been observed.” This assertion, in turn, rests on the premise that “it is within the knowledge and experience of laypersons that a person with a healthy brain does not usually go into the operating room 2020Res Ipsa Loquitur ¶17 The Bergers contend that the district court erred when it ruled that they “did not establish a prima facie case for res ipsa loquitur and further erred when it failed to approve the proposed jury instruction.” The Bergers’ contention hinges on their assertion that Bonnie’s injury “was of a kind that, in the ordinary course of events, would not have happened if due care had been observed.” This assertion, in turn, rests on the premise that “it is within the knowledge and experience of laypersons that a person with a healthy brain does not usually go into the operating room | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Marchet
green
2 sentences2014"Whether the trial court's refusal to give a proposed jury instruction constitutes error is a question of law, which we review for correctness." State v. Marchet, 2012 UT App 197, ¶ 10 , 284 P.3d 668 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 2014"Whether the trial court's refusal to give a proposed jury instruction constitutes error is a question of law, which we review for correctness." State v. Marchet, 2012 UT App 197, ¶ 10 , 284 P.3d 668 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Hamblin
green
2 sentences2014"Failure to give requested jury instructions constitutes reversible error only if their omission tends to mislead the jury to the prejudice of the complaining party or insufficiently or erroneously advises the jury on the law." State v. Stringham, 2001 UT App 13, ¶ 17 , 17 P.3d 1153 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 124 Fourth, Defendant claims that the trial court improperly allowed the State to amend the information during trial "A trial court's decision to permit amendment of an information is reviewed for abuse of discretion." State v. Hamblin, 2010 UT App 239, ¶ 13 , 239 P. 2014"Failure to give requested jury instructions constitutes reversible error only if their omission tends to mislead the jury to the prejudice of the complaining party or insufficiently or erroneously advises the jury on the law." State v. Stringham, 2001 UT App 13, ¶ 17 , 17 P.3d 1153 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 124 Fourth, Defendant claims that the trial court improperly allowed the State to amend the information during trial "A trial court's decision to permit amendment of an information is reviewed for abuse of discretion." State v. Hamblin, 2010 UT App 239, ¶ 13 , 239 P. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Finlayson
red
2 sentences2012T3 At trial, the State presented Wife's witness statements describing what had happened in the motel room. 4 On the morning of the second day of trial, defense counsel argued that State v. Finlayson, 2000 UT 10 , 994 P.2d 1243 , applied to the matter and requested the following proposed jury instruction: You are instructed that the law does not allow double punishment for the same act. 2012T3 At trial, the State presented Wife's witness statements describing what had happened in the motel room. 4 On the morning of the second day of trial, defense counsel argued that State v. Finlayson, 2000 UT 10 , 994 P.2d 1243 , applied to the matter and requested the following proposed jury instruction: You are instructed that the law does not allow double punishment for the same act. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Woodbury Amsource, Inc. v. Salt Lake County
green
2 sentences2003"We review the district court's summary judgment ruling for correctness, granting no deference to its legal conclusions." Woodbury Amsource, Inc. v. Salt Lake County, 2003 UT 28,¶ 4 , 73 P.3d 362 . 16 Chapman next argues that the trial court erred by not giving plaintiffs instructions 5, 6, 7, and 9 and in giving instruetion 33, which Chapman claims inaccurately states the law. " ''Whether the trial court's refusal to give a proposed jury instruction constitutes error is a question of law, which we review for correctness" " State v. Bluff, 2002 UT 66,¶ 21 , 52 P.3d 1210 (citations omitted). 2003"We review the district court's summary judgment ruling for correctness, granting no deference to its legal conclusions." Woodbury Amsource, Inc. v. Salt Lake County, 2003 UT 28,¶ 4 , 73 P.3d 362 . 16 Chapman next argues that the trial court erred by not giving plaintiffs instructions 5, 6, 7, and 9 and in giving instruetion 33, which Chapman claims inaccurately states the law. " ''Whether the trial court's refusal to give a proposed jury instruction constitutes error is a question of law, which we review for correctness" " State v. Bluff, 2002 UT 66,¶ 21 , 52 P.3d 1210 (citations omitted). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
State v. S.H.
green
2 sentences2003Likewise, "[wlhether a jury instruction correctly states the law presents a question of law which we [also] review for correctness." State v. Houskeeper, 2002 UT 118,¶ 11 , 62 P.3d 444 . 17 Chapman next claims that the trial court erred in excluding certain exhibits as irrelevant. 2003Likewise, "[wlhether a jury instruction correctly states the law presents a question of law which we [also] review for correctness." State v. Houskeeper, 2002 UT 118,¶ 11 , 62 P.3d 444 . 17 Chapman next claims that the trial court erred in excluding certain exhibits as irrelevant. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
State v. Weeks
green
2 sentences2003T9 Smith also argues that the evidence was insufficient to support both convictions. "[We will reverse a jury verdict only when we find that the evidence to support the verdict was completely lacking or was so slight and unconvincing as to make the verdict plainly unreasonable and unjust." Id. at $12 (quotations, citations, and alterations omitted). | * 10 Finally, Smith argues that under the cireumstances of this case the trial court erred in ordering restitution. "[The imposition of restitution is a matter left to the discretion of the [trial] court." State v. Robertson, 932 P.2d 1219, 1233 2003T9 Smith also argues that the evidence was insufficient to support both convictions. "[We will reverse a jury verdict only when we find that the evidence to support the verdict was completely lacking or was so slight and unconvincing as to make the verdict plainly unreasonable and unjust." Id. at $12 (quotations, citations, and alterations omitted). | * 10 Finally, Smith argues that under the cireumstances of this case the trial court erred in ordering restitution. "[The imposition of restitution is a matter left to the discretion of the [trial] court." State v. Robertson, 932 P.2d 1219, 1233 | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| State v. Hafen green | 1 | 1982–1982 |
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.