challenge rule in Utah

2014Id.

2014Id.

2020After considering this briefing, __________________________________________________________ 42 Id. (first alteration in original). 43 Although rule 12(b)(6) motions and rule 12(b)(1) motions are typically treated differently with respect to materials outside the pleadings, the nature of facial challenges to jurisdiction under rule 12(b)(1) is somewhat analogous to a challenge under rule 12(b)(6).

2018Id . at 326, 114 S.Ct. 1526 ("[A]ny inquiry into whether the interrogating officers have focused their suspicions upon the individual being questioned ( assuming those suspicions remain undisclosed ) is not relevant for the purposes of Miranda ." (emphasis added) ).

2018However, in Roderick v. Ricks , 2002 UT 84 , 54 P.3d 1119 , the Utah Supreme Court, in deciding a challenge to a rule 1.9(a) disqualification, referred to a substantial-relationship determination as a "factual finding," which it reviewed for clear error.

2018However, in Roderick v. Ricks , 2002 UT 84 , 54 P.3d 1119 , the Utah Supreme Court, in deciding a challenge to a rule 1.9(a) disqualification, referred to a substantial-relationship determination as a "factual finding," which it reviewed for clear error.

2014State v. Davis, 2013 UT App 228, ¶¶ 12, 18 , 311 P.3d 538 (noting the unsettled standard of prejudice and applying the harmless-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard as a matter of caution "even though the challenge to the error was unpreserved and does not involve a violation of a fundamental constitutional right"). 138 "Claims of prosecutorial misconduct are subject to the preservation rule." State v. Pedersen, 2010 UT App 38, ¶ 11 , 227 P.3d 1264 .

2014State v. Davis, 2013 UT App 228, ¶¶ 12, 18 , 311 P.3d 538 (noting the unsettled standard of prejudice and applying the harmless-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard as a matter of caution "even though the challenge to the error was unpreserved and does not involve a violation of a fundamental constitutional right"). 138 "Claims of prosecutorial misconduct are subject to the preservation rule." State v. Pedersen, 2010 UT App 38, ¶ 11 , 227 P.3d 1264 .

2013Severity of Sanetions 110 In reviewing a challenge to rule 37 sanctions, we first "consider whether the district court was justified in ordering sanctions" and "then review the type and amount of sanctions for abuse of discretion." PC Crane Serv., LLC v. McQueen Masonry, Inc., 2012 UT App 61, ¶ 32 , 273 P.3d 396 .

2013Severity of Sanctions ¶10 In reviewing a challenge to rule 37 sanctions, we first “consider whether the district court was justified in ordering sanctions” and “then review the type and amount of sanctions for abuse of discretion.” PC Crane Serv., LLC v. McQueen Masonry, Inc., 2012 UT App 61, ¶ 32 , 273 P.3d 396 .

2013Severity of Sanetions 110 In reviewing a challenge to rule 37 sanctions, we first "consider whether the district court was justified in ordering sanctions" and "then review the type and amount of sanctions for abuse of discretion." PC Crane Serv., LLC v. McQueen Masonry, Inc., 2012 UT App 61, ¶ 32 , 273 P.3d 396 .

2013Severity of Sanctions ¶10 In reviewing a challenge to rule 37 sanctions, we first “consider whether the district court was justified in ordering sanctions” and “then review the type and amount of sanctions for abuse of discretion.” PC Crane Serv., LLC v. McQueen Masonry, Inc., 2012 UT App 61, ¶ 32 , 273 P.3d 396 .

2013In particular, our case law "is not entirely clear" on "what standard of harmlessness applies, and who bears the burden of proof, when a claim of constitutional error is raised within the plain error context." State v. Cox, 2012 UT App 234 , ¶ 15 n. 2, 286 P.3d 15 (Voros, J., concurring in part and concurring in the result in part). 112 Accordingly, in Wright we took the cautious approach of "assuming that the harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard applies, even though the challenge to the error was unpreserved and does not involve a violation of a fundamental constitutional right." 2013

2013In particular, our case law “is not entirely clear” on “what standard of harmlessness applies, and who bears the burden of proof, when a claim of constitutional error is raised within the plain error context.” State v. Cox, 2012 UT App 234 , ¶ 15 n.2, 286 P.3d 15 (Voros, J., concurring in part and concurring in the result in part). ¶12 Accordingly, in Wright we took the cautious approach of “assuming that the harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard applies, even though the challenge to the error was unpreserved and does not involve a violation of a fundamental constitutional 20110204‐CA 4

2013In particular, our case law “is not entirely clear” on “what standard of harmlessness applies, and who bears the burden of proof, when a claim of constitutional error is raised within the plain error context.” State v. Cox, 2012 UT App 234 , ¶ 15 n.2, 286 P.3d 15 (Voros, J., concurring in part and concurring in the result in part). ¶12 Accordingly, in Wright we took the cautious approach of “assuming that the harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard applies, even though the challenge to the error was unpreserved and does not involve a violation of a fundamental constitutional 20110204‐CA 4

2013In particular, our case law “is not entirely clear” on “what standard of harmlessness applies, and who bears the burden of proof, when a claim of constitutional error is raised within the plain error context.” State v. Cox, 2012 UT App 234 , ¶ 15 n.2, 286 P.3d 15 (Voros, J., concurring in part and concurring in the result in part). ¶12 Accordingly, in Wright we took the cautious approach of “assuming that the harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard applies, even though the challenge to the error was unpreserved and does not involve a violation of a fundamental constitutional 20110204‐CA 4

2013Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

2012While Cristobal raised other arguments in his appellate brief, at oral argument he limited his claim on appeal to a challenge under rule 408 of the Utah Rules of Evidence to the Gang Activity Evidence. 2 The final part of an analysis under rule 404(b) of the Utah Rules of Evidence is a rule 403 balancing of the probative value of the evidence against its risk of unfair prejudice. 3 See High, 2012 UT App 180, ¶29 , 282 P.3d 1046, 1057 (stating that relevant evidence "'may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudiece'" (quoting State v. Nelson

2012While Cristobal raised other arguments in his appellate brief, at oral argument he limited his claim on appeal to a challenge under rule 408 of the Utah Rules of Evidence to the Gang Activity Evidence. 2 The final part of an analysis under rule 404(b) of the Utah Rules of Evidence is a rule 403 balancing of the probative value of the evidence against its risk of unfair prejudice. 3 See High, 2012 UT App 180, ¶29 , 282 P.3d 1046, 1057 (stating that relevant evidence "'may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudiece'" (quoting State v. Nelson

2012McRae, 526 P.2d at 1191 (recognizing and citing Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 , 93 S.Ct. 705 , 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973), for the proposition that ("even if the matter had become moot because of the termination of plaintiff's pregnancy, nevertheless, the court would retain jurisdiction of the appeal because there was an issue capable of repetition, yet evading review") (internal quotation marks omitted)).

2012McRae, 526 P.2d at 1191 (recognizing and citing Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 , 93 S.Ct. 705 , 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973), for the proposition that ("even if the matter had become moot because of the termination of plaintiff's pregnancy, nevertheless, the court would retain jurisdiction of the appeal because there was an issue capable of repetition, yet evading review") (internal quotation marks omitted)).

2011Although the State has two independent duties to provide discovery to a defendant, i.e., the Due Process Clause and rule 16 of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure, see State v. Kallin, 877 P.2d 138, 143 (Utah 1994); State v. Doyle, 2010 UT App 351, 14 , 245 P.3d 206 , Defendant raises a challenge only under rule 16, and therefore, we do not address the alternative constitutional basis for challenging discovery violations. 2 .

2011Although the State has two independent duties to provide discovery to a defendant, i.e., the Due Process Clause and rule 16 of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure, see State v. Kallin, 877 P.2d 138, 143 (Utah 1994); State v. Doyle, 2010 UT App 351, 14 , 245 P.3d 206 , Defendant raises a challenge only under rule 16, and therefore, we do not address the alternative constitutional basis for challenging discovery violations. 2 .

2004Accordingly, we decline to address the issue on appeal. 3 See Schultz, 2002 UT App 366 at ¶ 19 , 58 P.3d 879 .

2004Accordingly, we decline to address the issue on appeal. 3 See Schultz, 2002 UT App 366 at ¶ 19 , 58 P.3d 879 .