17 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 2020–2026 16 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. Sotogreen2 sentences2026“To decide whether a trial affected by error is reasonably likely to have turned out differently we have to consider a hypothetical—an alternative universe in which the trial went off without the error.” Id.; see also State v. Soto, 2022 UT App 107, ¶ 25 , 518 P.3d 157 (“Under a counterfactual analysis, we consider whether, in the absence of the improperly admitted evidence, the likelihood of a different outcome is sufficiently high to undermine our confidence in the verdict.” (cleaned up)). ¶70 In this case, Gaines asserts that Counsel rendered ineffective assistance in four different ways: b 2026“To decide whether a trial affected by error is reasonably likely to have turned out differently we have to consider a hypothetical—an alternative universe in which the trial went off without the error.” Id.; see also State v. Soto, 2022 UT App 107, ¶ 25 , 518 P.3d 157 (“Under a counterfactual analysis, we consider whether, in the absence of the improperly admitted evidence, the likelihood of a different outcome is sufficiently high to undermine our confidence in the verdict.” (cleaned up)). ¶70 In this case, Gaines asserts that Counsel rendered ineffective assistance in four different ways: b | 5 | 7 |
Strickland v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2025We must also “‘consider the totality of the evidence’ and ask if the alleged error ‘had a pervasive’ or ‘an isolated, trivial effect.’” State v. Howell, 2016 UT App 90, ¶ 5 , 374 P.3d 1032 (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 695–96). ¶37 We initially consider what would have happened in a counterfactual world with respect to Jones’s charges of possession 20220912-CA 14 2025 UT App 56 State v. Jones of a firearm by a restricted person, possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute, and possession of drug paraphernalia if the jury had learned that Deputy 4’s testimony about Deputy 2025See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 695 (1984) (“The assessment 20230325-CA 9 2025 UT App 169 State v. Bell of prejudice should proceed on the assumption that the decisionmaker is reasonably, conscientiously, and impartially applying the standards that govern the decision.”). | 2 | 3 |
State v. Cesspoochgreen2 sentences2026To decide whether a trial affected by error is reasonably likely to have turned out differently we have to consider a hypothetical—an alternative universe in which the trial went off without the error.” State v. Ellis, 2018 UT 2, ¶ 42 , 417 P.3d 86 ; see also State v. Cesspooch, 2024 UT App 15, ¶ 14 , 544 P.3d 1046 (stating that, in this context, we must “ask[] whether we remain confident that the verdict would be the same had the improper information been excluded” (quotation simplified)); State v. Soto, 2022 UT App 107, ¶ 25 , 518 P.3d 157 (“Under a counterfactual analysis, we consider wheth 2026To decide whether a trial affected by error is reasonably likely to have turned out differently we have to consider a hypothetical—an alternative universe in which the trial went off without the error.” State v. Ellis, 2018 UT 2, ¶ 42 , 417 P.3d 86 ; see also State v. Cesspooch, 2024 UT App 15, ¶ 14 , 544 P.3d 1046 (stating that, in this context, we must “ask[] whether we remain confident that the verdict would be the same had the improper information been excluded” (quotation simplified)); State v. Soto, 2022 UT App 107, ¶ 25 , 518 P.3d 157 (“Under a counterfactual analysis, we consider wheth | 2 | 2 |
State v. Ellisgreen2 sentences2026To decide whether a trial affected by error is reasonably likely to have turned out differently we have to consider a hypothetical—an alternative universe in which the trial went off without the error.” State v. Ellis, 2018 UT 2, ¶ 42 , 417 P.3d 86 ; see also State v. Cesspooch, 2024 UT App 15, ¶ 14 , 544 P.3d 1046 (stating that, in this context, we must “ask[] whether we remain confident that the verdict would be the same had the improper information been excluded” (quotation simplified)); State v. Soto, 2022 UT App 107, ¶ 25 , 518 P.3d 157 (“Under a counterfactual analysis, we consider wheth 2026To decide whether a trial affected by error is reasonably likely to have turned out differently we have to consider a hypothetical—an alternative universe in which the trial went off without the error.” State v. Ellis, 2018 UT 2, ¶ 42 , 417 P.3d 86 ; see also State v. Cesspooch, 2024 UT App 15, ¶ 14 , 544 P.3d 1046 (stating that, in this context, we must “ask[] whether we remain confident that the verdict would be the same had the improper information been excluded” (quotation simplified)); State v. Soto, 2022 UT App 107, ¶ 25 , 518 P.3d 157 (“Under a counterfactual analysis, we consider wheth | 1 | 8 |
State v. Garcia-Floresgreen2 sentences2025“The counterfactual analysis requires us to consider a hypothetical—an alternative universe in which the trial went off without error.” Id. (cleaned up). 2025The counterfactual analysis requires us to consider a hypothetical—an alternative universe in which the trial went off without the error.” State v. Garcia-Flores, 2021 UT App 97, ¶ 27 , 497 P.3d 847 (quotation simplified). ¶24 Because the error at issue here is the omission of a motion for directed verdict based on the interpretation of a statute—a purely legal question—and we have determined that Bell’s interpretation of the statute is correct, in the counterfactual scenario in which Counsel moved for a directed verdict on the ground that the plain language of the controlling statute dictated | 1 | 5 |
cluster 10860139green1 sentence2026To decide whether a trial affected by error is reasonably likely to have turned out differently we have to consider a hypothetical—an alternative universe in which the trial went off without the error.” State v. Ellis, 2018 UT 2, ¶ 42 , 417 P.3d 86 ; see also State v. Soto, 2022 UT App 107, ¶ 25 , 518 P.3d 157 (“Under a counterfactual analysis, we consider whether, in the absence of the improperly admitted 20230748-CA 19 2026 UT App 78 State v. Cartwright evidence, the likelihood of a different outcome is sufficiently high to undermine our confidence in the verdict.” (cleaned up)). ¶51 The fif | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bellgreen1 sentence2025See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 695 (1984) (“The assessment 20230325-CA 9 2025 UT App 169 State v. Bell of prejudice should proceed on the assumption that the decisionmaker is reasonably, conscientiously, and impartially applying the standards that govern the decision.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Gourdingreen1 sentence2024To decide whether a trial affected by error is reasonably likely to have turned out differently we have to consider a hypothetical—an alternative universe in which the trial went off without the error.” State v. Ellis, 2018 UT 2, ¶ 42 , 417 P.3d 86 ; see also State v. Soto, 2022 UT App 107, ¶ 25 , 518 P.3d 157 (“Under a counterfactual analysis, we consider whether, in the absence of improperly admitted [or misleading] evidence, the likelihood of a different outcome is sufficiently high to undermine our confidence in the verdict.” (quotation simplified)), cert. denied, 526 P.3d 827 (Utah 2022). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Garciagreen2 sentences2020Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984); see also State v. Garcia, 2017 UT 53, ¶¶ 28, 42 , 424 P.3d 171 (stating that, in the context of counsel’s failure to object to erroneous jury instructions, the court must “ask if the defendant has met the burden of showing that the decision reached would reasonably likely have been different absent the errors” (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 695–96)). ¶90 We have clarified that “[a] reasonable probability of a different outcome is in no way synonymous with . . . ‘any reasonable basis in the evidence.’” Garcia, 2017 UT 53, ¶ 44 (citation omit 2020Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984); see also State v. Garcia, 2017 UT 53, ¶¶ 28, 42 , 424 P.3d 171 (stating that, in the context of counsel’s failure to object to erroneous jury instructions, the court must “ask if the defendant has met the burden of showing that the decision reached would reasonably likely have been different absent the errors” (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 695–96)). ¶90 We have clarified that “[a] reasonable probability of a different outcome is in no way synonymous with . . . ‘any reasonable basis in the evidence.’” Garcia, 2017 UT 53, ¶ 44 (citation omit | 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. Leech
green
2 sentences2023In other words, we must “consider whether, in the absence of the improperly admitted evidence, the likelihood of a different outcome is sufficiently high to undermine our confidence in the verdict.” State v. Leech, 2020 UT App 116, ¶ 67 , 473 P.3d 218 , cert. denied, 481 P.3d 1039 (Utah 2021). ¶52 Before we can conduct this counterfactual analysis, we must identify exactly what the jury would have heard if the evidence Aiken challenges on appeal had been excluded. 2023In other words, we must “consider whether, in the absence of the improperly admitted evidence, the likelihood of a different outcome is sufficiently high to undermine our confidence in the verdict.” State v. Leech, 2020 UT App 116, ¶ 67 , 473 P.3d 218 , cert. denied, 481 P.3d 1039 (Utah 2021). ¶52 Before we can conduct this counterfactual analysis, we must identify exactly what the jury would have heard if the evidence Aiken challenges on appeal had been excluded. | 3 | 2021–2023 |
State v. Gaines
neutral
1 sentence2026Gaines asserts that claims (1) and (4) can be supported with evidence already in the record, but he 20240045-CA 28 2026 UT App 44 State v. Gaines acknowledges that evidence supporting claims (2) and (3) is not already in the record. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
cluster 10863449
green
1 sentence2026Beth and Clara offered testimony that was detailed, consistent, and 20240257-CA 42 2026 UT App 83 State v. Shay “mutually corroborative.” 10 Supra ¶ 34. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Wall
green
1 sentence2025To decide whether a trial affected by error is reasonably likely to have turned out 20220835-CA 9 2025 UT App 30 State v. Wall differently we have to consider a hypothetical—an alternative universe in which the trial went off without the error.” State v. Ellis, 2018 UT 2, ¶ 42 , 417 P.3d 86 ; see also State v. Soto, 2022 UT App 107, ¶ 25 , 518 P.3d 157 (“Under a counterfactual analysis, we consider whether, in the absence of improperly admitted evidence, the likelihood of a different outcome is sufficiently high to undermine our confidence in the verdict.” (cleaned up)). ¶23 In this case, Wall | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Howell
neutral
2 sentences2025We must also “‘consider the totality of the evidence’ and ask if the alleged error ‘had a pervasive’ or ‘an isolated, trivial effect.’” State v. Howell, 2016 UT App 90, ¶ 5 , 374 P.3d 1032 (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 695–96). ¶37 We initially consider what would have happened in a counterfactual world with respect to Jones’s charges of possession 20220912-CA 14 2025 UT App 56 State v. Jones of a firearm by a restricted person, possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute, and possession of drug paraphernalia if the jury had learned that Deputy 4’s testimony about Deputy 2025We must also “‘consider the totality of the evidence’ and ask if the alleged error ‘had a pervasive’ or ‘an isolated, trivial effect.’” State v. Howell, 2016 UT App 90, ¶ 5 , 374 P.3d 1032 (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 695–96). ¶37 We initially consider what would have happened in a counterfactual world with respect to Jones’s charges of possession 20220912-CA 14 2025 UT App 56 State v. Jones of a firearm by a restricted person, possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute, and possession of drug paraphernalia if the jury had learned that Deputy 4’s testimony about Deputy | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Jones
neutral
1 sentence2025We must also “‘consider the totality of the evidence’ and ask if the alleged error ‘had a pervasive’ or ‘an isolated, trivial effect.’” State v. Howell, 2016 UT App 90, ¶ 5 , 374 P.3d 1032 (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 695–96). ¶37 We initially consider what would have happened in a counterfactual world with respect to Jones’s charges of possession 20220912-CA 14 2025 UT App 56 State v. Jones of a firearm by a restricted person, possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute, and possession of drug paraphernalia if the jury had learned that Deputy 4’s testimony about Deputy | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Thomas
green
1 sentence2025To decide whether a trial affected by error is reasonably likely to have turned out differently we have to consider a hypothetical—an alternative universe in which the trial went off without the error.” State v. Ellis, 2018 UT 2, ¶ 42 , 417 P.3d 86 ; see also Cesspooch, 2024 UT App 15, ¶ 14 (stating that, in this context, we must “ask[] whether we remain confident that the verdict would be the same had the improper information been excluded” (cleaned up)); State v. Soto, 2022 UT App 107, ¶ 25 , 518 P.3d 157 (“Under a counterfactual analysis, we consider whether, in the absence of the improperl | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Vine
green
1 sentence2025To decide whether a trial affected by error is reasonably likely to have turned out differently we have to consider a hypothetical—an alternative universe in which the 20221058-CA 26 2025 UT App 147 State v. Vine trial went off without the error.” State v. Ellis, 2018 UT 2, ¶ 42 , 417 P.3d 86 ; see also State v. Soto, 2022 UT App 107, ¶ 25 , 518 P.3d 157 (“Under a counterfactual analysis, we consider whether, in the absence of the improperly admitted evidence, the likelihood of a different outcome is sufficiently high to undermine our confidence in the verdict.” (cleaned up)). ¶74 We are simpl | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Rivera
green
2 sentences2024Under such a counterfactual analysis, the “proof of ineffective assistance of counsel cannot be a speculative matter but must be a demonstrable reality.” State v. Rivera, 2022 UT App 44, ¶ 43 , 509 P.3d 257 (cleaned up). 2024Under such a counterfactual analysis, the “proof of ineffective assistance of counsel cannot be a speculative matter but must be a demonstrable reality.” State v. Rivera, 2022 UT App 44, ¶ 43 , 509 P.3d 257 (cleaned up). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Whitchurch
green
1 sentence2024Thus, “speculation is not a substitute for proof of prejudice, and proof of prejudice may not be based purely upon a speculative matter.” Id. (cleaned up). 20200938-CA 28 2024 UT App 108 State v. Whitchurch ¶64 The first relevant counterfactual scenario in this case is one in which Counsel reviewed the security camera video before trial. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Welsh
green
1 sentence2022The counterfactual analysis in this case thus requires us to consider what Welsh’s trial would have looked like if Doctor had not testified that Victim told him that Welsh “got hold of me 20190833-CA 16 2022 UT App 112 State v. Welsh again” and “had kidnapped me.” We conclude that, even without those statements, there’s no reasonable likelihood that there would have been a result more favorable to Welsh. ¶53 First, the jury would have still heard Roommate’s firsthand account of what she saw when Welsh broke into the apartment. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
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.