194 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2026 58 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. Dunngreen2 sentences2019"Under the cumulative error doctrine, we will reverse only if the cumulative effect of the several errors undermines our confidence that a fair trial was had." Dunn , 850 P.2d at 1229 (quotation simplified). 2018Because we conclude that there was no error in the rape jury instruction, see infra ¶ 29, Newton cannot prevail under the rubric of plain error. 7 Newton also argues that the "cumulative errors require a new trial." "Under the cumulative error doctrine, we will reverse only if the cumulative effect of the several errors undermines our confidence that a fair trial was had." State v. Dunn , 850 P.2d 1201 , 1229 (Utah 1993) (quotation simplified). | 49 | 55 |
State v. Martinez-Castellanosgreen2 sentences2026See State v. Martinez-Castellanos, 2018 UT 46, ¶ 48 , 428 P.3d 1038 (stating that “a single accumulable error cannot warrant reversal under the cumulative error doctrine”). 20221106-CA 43 2026 UT App 20 2026See State v. Martinez-Castellanos, 2018 UT 46, ¶ 48 , 428 P.3d 1038 (stating that “a single accumulable error cannot warrant reversal under the cumulative error doctrine”). 20221106-CA 43 2026 UT App 20 | 13 | 38 |
Whitehead v. American Motors Sales Corp.green2 sentences2014"Under the cumulative error doctrine, we will reverse only if 'the cumulative effect of the several errors undermines our confidence ... that a fair trial was had.'" State v. Dunn, 850 P.2d 1201, 1229 (Utah 1993) (quoting Whitehead v. American Motors Sales Corp., 801 P.2d 920, 928 (Utah 1990). 2014“Under the cumulative error doctrine, we will reverse only if ‘the cumulative effect of the several errors undermines our confidence . . . that a fair trial was had.’” State v. Dunn, 850 P.2d 1201, 1229 (Utah 1993) (quoting Whitehead v. American Motors Sales Corp., 801 P.2d 920, 928 (Utah 1990)). | 7 | 7 |
State v. Rammelgreen2 sentences2000Under the cumulative error doctrine, we will reverse only if “ ‘the cumulative effect of the several errors undermines our confidence ... that a fair trial was had.’ ” State v. Harmon, 956 P.2d 262, 277 (Utah 1998) (quoting State v. Dunn, 850 P.2d 1201, 1229 (Utah 1993) (internal quotation omitted)); accord State v. Cardall, 982 P.2d 79, 85 (Utah 1999) (citing State v. Ellis, 748 P.2d 188, 191 (Utah 1987); State v. Rammel, 721 P.2d 498, 501-02 (Utah 1986)). 2000Under the cumulative error doctrine, we will reverse only if "`the cumulative effect of the several errors undermines our confidence... that a fair trial was had.'" State v. Harmon, 956 P.2d 262, 277 (Utah 1998) (quoting State v. Dunn, 850 P.2d 1201, 1229 (Utah 1993) (internal quotation omitted)); accord State v. Cardall, 982 P.2d 79, 85 (Utah 1999) (citing State v. Ellis, 748 P.2d 188, 191 (Utah 1987); State v. Rammel, 721 P.2d 498, 501-02 (Utah 1986)). | 6 | 7 |
State v. Gonzalesgreen2 sentences2018See State v. Gonzales , 2005 UT 72 , ¶ 74, 125 P.3d 878 (stating that the cumulative error doctrine will not apply "[i]f the claims are found on appeal to not constitute error"). 2018See State v. Gonzales , 2005 UT 72 , ¶ 74, 125 P.3d 878 (stating that the cumulative error doctrine will not apply "[i]f the claims are found on appeal to not constitute error"). | 5 | 7 |
State v. Wrightgreen2 sentences2025See State v. Wright, 2013 UT App 142, ¶ 44 , 304 P.3d 887 (“Under the cumulative error doctrine, appellate courts will reverse only if the cumulative effect of the several errors undermines our confidence that a fair trial was had. . . . 2025See State v. Wright, 2013 UT App 142, ¶ 44 , 304 P.3d 887 (“Under the cumulative error doctrine, appellate courts will reverse only if the cumulative effect of the several errors undermines our confidence that a fair trial was had. . . . | 5 | 6 |
State v. Ellisgreen2 sentences2017“Cumulative error refers to a number of errors which prejudice a defendant’s right to a fair trial.” State v. Ellis, 748 P.2d 188, 191 (Utah 1987) (alteration, citation, and internal quotation marks omitted). 2017“Cumulative error refers to a number of errors which prejudice a defendant’s right to a fair trial.” State v. Ellis, 748 P.2d 188, 191 (Utah 1987) (alteration, citation, and internal quotation marks omitted). | 5 | 6 |
State v. Pereagreen2 sentences2025Under the cumulative error doctrine, appellate courts apply “the standard of review applicable to each underlying claim of 8 Cite as: 2025 UT 54 Opinion of the Court error.” State v. Perea, 2013 UT 68, ¶ 33 , 322 P.3d 624 (cleaned up). 2025Under the cumulative error doctrine, appellate courts apply “the standard of review applicable to each underlying claim of 8 Cite as: 2025 UT 54 Opinion of the Court error.” State v. Perea, 2013 UT 68, ¶ 33 , 322 P.3d 624 (cleaned up). | 4 | 7 |
State v. Galindogreen2 sentences2021See State v. Galindo, 2019 UT App 171 , ¶ 17 n.4, 452 P.3d 519 (“There are no errors to accumulate here, rendering the cumulative error doctrine inapplicable in this case.”). 20191012-CA 13 2021 UT App 97 State v. Garcia-Flores ¶25 Deficient performance is that which is unreasonable based on “prevailing professional norms.” Id. at 688. 2021See State v. Galindo, 2019 UT App 171 , ¶ 17 n.4, 452 P.3d 519 (“There are no errors to accumulate here, rendering the cumulative error doctrine inapplicable in this case.”). 20191012-CA 13 2021 UT App 97 State v. Garcia-Flores ¶25 Deficient performance is that which is unreasonable based on “prevailing professional norms.” Id. at 688. | 4 | 6 |
State v. Beverlygreen2 sentences2019We therefore affirm. 7. “[I]n the event that any one error is insufficient for reversal,” Escobar-Florez requests that this court reverse “based on the cumulative effect of the errors.” “Under the doctrine of cumulative error, we will reverse if the cumulative effect of the several errors undermines our confidence that a fair trial was had.” State v. Beverly, 2018 UT 60, ¶ 80 , 435 P.3d 160 (cleaned up). 2019We therefore affirm. 7. “[I]n the event that any one error is insufficient for reversal,” Escobar-Florez requests that this court reverse “based on the cumulative effect of the errors.” “Under the doctrine of cumulative error, we will reverse if the cumulative effect of the several errors undermines our confidence that a fair trial was had.” State v. Beverly, 2018 UT 60, ¶ 80 , 435 P.3d 160 (cleaned up). | 4 | 5 |
State v. Modesgreen2 sentences2025But “because we conclude that there are no errors to accumulate here, the cumulative error doctrine is inapplicable in this case.” State v. Modes, 2020 UT App 136 , ¶ 12 n.5, 475 P.3d 153 (quotation simplified). 20230006-CA 14 2025 UT App 188 2025But “because we conclude that there are no errors to accumulate here, the cumulative error doctrine is inapplicable in this case.” State v. Modes, 2020 UT App 136 , ¶ 12 n.5, 475 P.3d 153 (quotation simplified). 20230006-CA 14 2025 UT App 188 | 3 | 8 |
State v. Camposgreen2 sentences2025We now consider whether these two instances cumulatively prejudiced Williams. 3 See State v. Campos, 2013 UT App 213, ¶ 61 , 309 P.3d 1160 . ¶38 To reverse under the cumulative error doctrine, this court “must determine that (1) an error occurred, (2) the error, standing alone, has a conceivable potential for harm, and (3) the cumulative effect of all the potentially harmful errors undermines its confidence in the outcome.” State v. Martinez-Castellanos, 2018 UT 46, ¶ 42 , 428 P.3d 1038 . 2025We now consider whether these two instances cumulatively prejudiced Williams. 3 See State v. Campos, 2013 UT App 213, ¶ 61 , 309 P.3d 1160 . ¶38 To reverse under the cumulative error doctrine, this court “must determine that (1) an error occurred, (2) the error, standing alone, has a conceivable potential for harm, and (3) the cumulative effect of all the potentially harmful errors undermines its confidence in the outcome.” State v. Martinez-Castellanos, 2018 UT 46, ¶ 42 , 428 P.3d 1038 . | 3 | 6 |
ConocoPhillips Co. v. Utah Department of Transportationgreen2 sentences2024“The cumulative-error doctrine requires us to reverse if (1) we determine, or assume without deciding, that two or more errors occurred and (2) we determine that the cumulative effect of those errors undermines our confidence that a fair trial was had.” ConocoPhillips Co. v. Utah Dep’t of Transp., 2017 UT App 68, ¶ 30 , 397 P.3d 772 . 20220006-CA 20 2024 UT App 43 2024“The cumulative-error doctrine requires us to reverse if (1) we determine, or assume without deciding, that two or more errors occurred and (2) we determine that the cumulative effect of those errors undermines our confidence that a fair trial was had.” ConocoPhillips Co. v. Utah Dep’t of Transp., 2017 UT App 68, ¶ 30 , 397 P.3d 772 . 20220006-CA 20 2024 UT App 43 | 3 | 5 |
Strickland v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2021On the other hand, if we determine “that either a party’s claim did not amount to an error, or that the claim was an error but has no potential to cause harm on its own, the claim cannot weigh in favor of reversal (continued…) 20190062-CA 9 2021 UT App 137 State v. Tippets Supreme Court’s decision in Strickland v. Washington,” 466 U.S. 668 (1984), and “[t]here is no reason . . . to depart from the standard of review set out in Strickland simply because the appeal was preceded by a motion for new trial.” State v. Templin, 805 P.2d 182 , 185–86 (Utah 1990). 2021Because we conclude that Tippets’s defense counsel committed no errors that, on their own, had a conceivable potential for harm, there are no errors to accumulate and the cumulative error doctrine does not apply. 20190062-CA 10 2021 UT App 137 State v. Tippets was deficient’ and that ‘the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.’” State v. Lopez-Gonzalez, 2020 UT App 15, ¶ 19 , 459 P.3d 1049 (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984)). | 3 | 4 |
State v. Kohlgreen2 sentences2023“Under the cumulative error doctrine, we will reverse only if the cumulative effect of the several errors undermines our confidence that a fair trial was had.” State v. Kohl, 2000 UT 35, ¶ 25 , 999 P.2d 7 (cleaned up). 2023“Under the cumulative error doctrine, we will reverse only if the cumulative effect of the several errors undermines our confidence that a fair trial was had.” State v. Kohl, 2000 UT 35, ¶ 25 , 999 P.2d 7 (cleaned up). | 2 | 17 |
State v. Killpackgreen2 sentences2024“A reviewing court will reverse a jury verdict under the cumulative error doctrine only if the cumulative effect of the several errors undermines confidence that a fair trial was had.” State v. Killpack, 2008 UT 49, ¶ 56 , 191 P.3d 17 (quotation simplified). 2024“A reviewing court will reverse a jury verdict under the cumulative error doctrine only if the cumulative effect of the several errors undermines confidence that a fair trial was had.” State v. Killpack, 2008 UT 49, ¶ 56 , 191 P.3d 17 (quotation simplified). | 2 | 13 |
State v. Maestasgreen2 sentences2025See id. (stating that the cumulative error doctrine has no application where “the claims are found on appeal to not constitute error, or the errors are found to be so minor as to result in no harm” (quotation simplified)). 20210565-CA 36 2025 UT App 165 2018State v. Maestas , 2012 UT 46 , ¶ 363, 299 P.3d 892 (alterations in original) (citation omitted); see also Perea , 2013 UT 68 , ¶ 105, 322 P.3d 624 ("Cumulative error is applicable in those instances where the district court's collective errors rise to a level that undermine our confidence in the fairness of the proceedings."); State v. Kohl , 2000 UT 35 , ¶ 25, 999 P.2d 7 (holding that the cumulative error doctrine will not be applied unless "the aggregation of these errors ... result[s] in a fundamentally unfair trial"). | 2 | 7 |
State v. Torres-Orellanagreen2 sentences2025Cumulative Error ¶84 As to Smith’s claim of cumulative error, we have held elsewhere that “the cumulative error doctrine . . . does not apply” when there is “no other error with which to cumulate [t]rial [c]ounsel’s [non-prejudicial] presumed . . . errors.” State v. Torres- Orellana, 2021 UT App 74 , ¶ 30 n.11, 493 P.3d 711 . 2025Cumulative Error ¶84 As to Smith’s claim of cumulative error, we have held elsewhere that “the cumulative error doctrine . . . does not apply” when there is “no other error with which to cumulate [t]rial [c]ounsel’s [non-prejudicial] presumed . . . errors.” State v. Torres- Orellana, 2021 UT App 74 , ¶ 30 n.11, 493 P.3d 711 . | 2 | 3 |
Archuleta v. Galetkagreen2 sentences2020And because we have not found any of his claims to be viable, “the doctrine of cumulative error does not apply.” Archuleta III, 2011 UT 73, ¶ 146 (citation omitted). 2020And because we have not found any of his claims to be viable, “the doctrine of cumulative error does not apply.” Archuleta III, 2011 UT 73, ¶ 146 (citation omitted). | 2 | 3 |
State v. Colwellgreen2 sentences2013But "[f the claims are found on appeal to not constitute error, or the errors are found to be so minor as to result in no harm, the doctrine will not be applied." State v. Gonzales, 2005 UT 72, ¶ 74 , 125 P.3d 878 (declining to apply *904 the cumulative error doctrine where the claims on appeal did not constitute error or were harmless); State v. Kohl, 2000 UT 35, ¶ 25 , 999 P.2d 7 (determining that there was no cumulative error where the defendant's claims either did not amount to error or were so minor that they did not result in harm); see also State v. Colwell, 2000 UT 8, ¶ 44 , 994 P.2d 1 2013But "[f the claims are found on appeal to not constitute error, or the errors are found to be so minor as to result in no harm, the doctrine will not be applied." State v. Gonzales, 2005 UT 72, ¶ 74 , 125 P.3d 878 (declining to apply *904 the cumulative error doctrine where the claims on appeal did not constitute error or were harmless); State v. Kohl, 2000 UT 35, ¶ 25 , 999 P.2d 7 (determining that there was no cumulative error where the defendant's claims either did not amount to error or were so minor that they did not result in harm); see also State v. Colwell, 2000 UT 8, ¶ 44 , 994 P.2d 1 | 2 | 3 |
Parsons v. Barnesgreen2 sentences2012We accordingly determine that counsel's *1046 strategy meets an objective standard of reasonableness. 112 Last, de la Cruz-Diaz claims that the combination of errors in this case "was so harmful that [his] conviction should be reversed under the cumulative error doctrine." "Because [de la Cruz-Diaz] has failed to establish any errors of counsel that prejudiced his right to a fair trial, the doctrine of cumulative error does not apply." See Parsons v. Barnes, 871 P.2d 516, 530 (Utah 1994). 13 Affirmed. 14 WE CONCUR: GREGORY K. 2012We accordingly determine that counsel's *1046 strategy meets an objective standard of reasonableness. 112 Last, de la Cruz-Diaz claims that the combination of errors in this case "was so harmful that [his] conviction should be reversed under the cumulative error doctrine." "Because [de la Cruz-Diaz] has failed to establish any errors of counsel that prejudiced his right to a fair trial, the doctrine of cumulative error does not apply." See Parsons v. Barnes, 871 P.2d 516, 530 (Utah 1994). 13 Affirmed. 14 WE CONCUR: GREGORY K. | 2 | 3 |
| State v. Smithgreen | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Powellgreen | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Raygreen | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Kinggreen | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Cardallgreen | 2 | 2 |
| Bundy v. Delandgreen | 2 | 2 |
State v. Davisgreen2 sentences2017“We review decisions relating to the qualification of a witness as an expert or as a lay witness for an abuse of discretion.” State v. Rothlisberger, 2004 UT App 226, ¶ 9 , 95 P.3d 1193 , aff'd, 2006 UT 49 , 147 P.3d 1176 . ¶ 16 Finally, Defendant argues that the errors he alleges, taken together, “undermine confidence in the fairness of [Defendant’s] trial.” “Under the cumulative error doctrine, we apply the standard of review applicable to each underlying claim or error” and “reverse only if the cumulative effect of multiple errors undermines our confidence that a fair trial was had.” State 2017“We review decisions relating to the qualification of a witness as an expert or as a lay witness for an abuse of discretion.” State v. Rothlisberger, 2004 UT App 226, ¶ 9 , 95 P.3d 1193 , aff'd, 2006 UT 49 , 147 P.3d 1176 . ¶ 16 Finally, Defendant argues that the errors he alleges, taken together, “undermine confidence in the fairness of [Defendant’s] trial.” “Under the cumulative error doctrine, we apply the standard of review applicable to each underlying claim or error” and “reverse only if the cumulative effect of multiple errors undermines our confidence that a fair trial was had.” State | 1 | 7 |
State v. McNeilgreen2 sentences2019"Under the cumulative error doctrine, we will reverse only if the cumulative effect of the several errors undermines our confidence that a fair trial was had." State v. McNeil , 2013 UT App 134 , ¶ 70, 302 P.3d 844 (quotation simplified), aff'd , 2016 UT 3 , 365 P.3d 699 . 2019"Under the cumulative error doctrine, we will reverse only if the cumulative effect of the several errors undermines our confidence that a fair trial was had." State v. McNeil , 2013 UT App 134 , ¶ 70, 302 P.3d 844 (quotation simplified), aff'd , 2016 UT 3 , 365 P.3d 699 . | 1 | 5 |
State v. Haynesgreen2 sentences2026State 20230735-CA, 20230760-CA, 20240282-CA 29 2026 UT App 30 State v. Mancia v. Haynes, 2025 UT App 75, ¶ 72 , 571 P.3d 1197 , cert. denied, 578 P.3d 749 (Utah 2025). ¶68 “To reverse under the cumulative error doctrine, this court must determine that (1) an error occurred, (2) the error, standing alone, has a conceivable potential for harm, and (3) the cumulative effect of all the potentially harmful errors undermines its confidence in the outcome.” Id. ¶ 73 (cleaned up). 2026State 20230735-CA, 20230760-CA, 20240282-CA 29 2026 UT App 30 State v. Mancia v. Haynes, 2025 UT App 75, ¶ 72 , 571 P.3d 1197 , cert. denied, 578 P.3d 749 (Utah 2025). ¶68 “To reverse under the cumulative error doctrine, this court must determine that (1) an error occurred, (2) the error, standing alone, has a conceivable potential for harm, and (3) the cumulative effect of all the potentially harmful errors undermines its confidence in the outcome.” Id. ¶ 73 (cleaned up). | 1 | 5 |
State v. McNeilgreen2 sentences2019"Under the cumulative error doctrine, we will reverse only if the cumulative effect of the several errors undermines our confidence that a fair trial was had." State v. McNeil , 2013 UT App 134 , ¶ 70, 302 P.3d 844 (quotation simplified), aff'd , 2016 UT 3 , 365 P.3d 699 . 2019"Under the cumulative error doctrine, we will reverse only if the cumulative effect of the several errors undermines our confidence that a fair trial was had." State v. McNeil , 2013 UT App 134 , ¶ 70, 302 P.3d 844 (quotation simplified), aff'd , 2016 UT 3 , 365 P.3d 699 . | 1 | 5 |
Radman v. Flanders Corp.green2 sentences2014Shannon also claims that she is entitled to a new trial due to the cumulative harm caused by the trial court's errors. "'Under the cumulative error doctrine, we will reverse only if the cumulative effect of the several errors undermines our confidence ... that a fair trial was had." State v. Dunn, 850 P.2d 1201, 1229 (Utah 1993) (omission in original) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Radman v. Flanders Corp., 2007 UT App 351, ¶20 , 172 P.3d 668 . 2014Shannon also claims that she is entitled to a new trial due to the cumulative harm caused by the trial court's errors. "'Under the cumulative error doctrine, we will reverse only if the cumulative effect of the several errors undermines our confidence ... that a fair trial was had." State v. Dunn, 850 P.2d 1201, 1229 (Utah 1993) (omission in original) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Radman v. Flanders Corp., 2007 UT App 351, ¶20 , 172 P.3d 668 . | 1 | 4 |
State v. Suhailgreen2 sentences2025A “court must make three determinations before reversing a verdict or sentence under the cumulative error doctrine: it must determine that (1) an error occurred, (2) the error, standing alone, has a conceivable potential for harm, and (3) the 20220669-CA 45 2025 UT App 104 State v. Francis cumulative effect of all the potentially harmful errors undermines its confidence in the outcome.” State v. Suhail, 2023 UT App 15, ¶ 153 , 525 P.3d 550 (quotation simplified). ¶117 As indicated, we conclude that the district court committed two errors, both of which related to the charges involving Alice: ( 2025A “court must make three determinations before reversing a verdict or sentence under the cumulative error doctrine: it must determine that (1) an error occurred, (2) the error, standing alone, has a conceivable potential for harm, and (3) the 20220669-CA 45 2025 UT App 104 State v. Francis cumulative effect of all the potentially harmful errors undermines its confidence in the outcome.” State v. Suhail, 2023 UT App 15, ¶ 153 , 525 P.3d 550 (quotation simplified). ¶117 As indicated, we conclude that the district court committed two errors, both of which related to the charges involving Alice: ( | 1 | 3 |
State v. Whitegreen2 sentences2023“Under the cumulative error doctrine, we apply the standard of review applicable to each underlying claim or error and reverse only if the cumulative effect of multiple errors undermines our confidence that a fair trial was had.” State v. White, 2016 UT App 241, ¶ 14 , 391 P.3d 311 (quotation simplified). 2023“Under the cumulative error doctrine, we apply the standard of review applicable to each underlying claim or error and reverse only if the cumulative effect of multiple errors undermines our confidence that a fair trial was had.” State v. White, 2016 UT App 241, ¶ 14 , 391 P.3d 311 (quotation simplified). | 1 | 3 |
| McKenzie v. Montanagreen | 1 | 3 |
| State v. Eyregreen | 1 | 2 |
| Bank of America v. Adamsongreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Houstongreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Brahamgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Newberrygreen | 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. Saedt
green
2 sentences2026State 20230735-CA, 20230760-CA, 20240282-CA 29 2026 UT App 30 State v. Mancia v. Haynes, 2025 UT App 75, ¶ 72 , 571 P.3d 1197 , cert. denied, 578 P.3d 749 (Utah 2025). ¶68 “To reverse under the cumulative error doctrine, this court must determine that (1) an error occurred, (2) the error, standing alone, has a conceivable potential for harm, and (3) the cumulative effect of all the potentially harmful errors undermines its confidence in the outcome.” Id. ¶ 73 (cleaned up). 2026State 20230735-CA, 20230760-CA, 20240282-CA 29 2026 UT App 30 State v. Mancia v. Haynes, 2025 UT App 75, ¶ 72 , 571 P.3d 1197 , cert. denied, 578 P.3d 749 (Utah 2025). ¶68 “To reverse under the cumulative error doctrine, this court must determine that (1) an error occurred, (2) the error, standing alone, has a conceivable potential for harm, and (3) the cumulative effect of all the potentially harmful errors undermines its confidence in the outcome.” Id. ¶ 73 (cleaned up). | 3 | 2026–2026 |
State v. McKenzie
green
2 sentences1987This claim is without merit. “ ‘Cumulative error’ refers to a number of errors which prejudice [a] defendant’s rights to a fair trial.” State v. Rammel, 721 P.2d 498, 501-02 (Utah 1986) (quoting State v. McKenzie, 186 Mont. 481, 514 , 608 P.2d 428, 448 , cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1050 , 101 S.Ct. 626 , 66 L.Ed.2d 507 (1980)). 1987This claim is without merit. “ ‘Cumulative error’ refers to a number of errors which prejudice [a] defendant’s rights to a fair trial.” State v. Rammel, 721 P.2d 498, 501-02 (Utah 1986) (quoting State v. McKenzie, 186 Mont. 481, 514 , 608 P.2d 428, 448 , cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1050 , 101 S.Ct. 626 , 66 L.Ed.2d 507 (1980)). | 3 | 1986–1999 |
| State v. Centeno green | 2 | 2024–2025 |
| State v. Sundara green | 2 | 2021–2024 |
| State v. Miles green | 2 | 2020–2024 |
| State v. Widdison green | 2 | 2002–2021 |
| State v. Wilkes green | 2 | 2020–2021 |
| State v. Lopez-Gonzalez green | 2 | 2020–2021 |
| State v. Lowther green | 2 | 2017–2020 |
| State v. Alfatlawi green | 2 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Carvajal green | 2 | 2018–2019 |
| State v. Martinez-Castellanos green | 2 | 2017–2018 |
| State v. Jones green | 2 | 2017–2018 |
| State v. Decorso green | 2 | 2011–2016 |
| State v. King green | 2 | 2012–2014 |
| State v. Gallegos green | 2 | 2011–2013 |
| cluster 10856413 green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| Schmidt v. Petersen green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| State v. Moore green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| State v. Brown green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| State v. Johnson green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| State v. Hogue green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| State v. McDaniel green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| State v. Mike green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| State v. Hunt green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| State v. Tolman green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| State v. Bush green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| State v. Lopez green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| State v. Granere green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| State v. Whitchurch green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
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.