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.
15 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2024 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 sentences2018See State v. Hamilton , 827 P.2d 232 , 239-40 (Utah 1992) ("In reviewing a trial court's ruling on the admissibility of evidence under rule 403, we will not overturn the court's determination unless it was an abuse of discretion. 2007"In reviewing a trial court's ruling on the admissibility of evidence under rule 408, we will not overturn the court's determination unless it was an abuse of discretion." State v. Hamilton, 827 P.2d 232, 239 (Utah 1992) (internal quotation marks omitted). | 6 | 7 |
State v. Shicklesgreen2 sentences2017The concurrence also worries that the test we announce today will be misapplied in the same way as the test this court announced in State v. Shickles, 760 P.2d 291, 295-96 (Utah 1988), where we identified factors courts should consider in evaluating the admissibility of evidence under rule 403 of the Utah Rules of Evidence. 2017See 760 P.2d at 295-96 (urging courts to consider the following factors in analyzing the admissibility of evidence under rule 403 : "the strength of the evidence as to the commission of the other crime, the similarities between the crimes, the interval of time that has elapsed between the crimes, the need for the evidence, the efficacy of alternative proof, and the degree to which the evidence probably will rouse the jury to overmastering hostility" (citation omitted)). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Verdegreen2 sentences1993In reviewing a trial court's ruling on the admissibility of evidence under rule 403, we will not overturn the court's determination unless it was an "abuse of discretion." State v. Hamilton, 827 P.2d 232, 239-40 (Utah 1992); see State v. Verde, 770 P.2d 116, 120 (Utah 1989); State v. Cloud, 722 P.2d 750, 752 (Utah 1986). 1993In reviewing a trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of evidence under rule 403, we will not overturn the court’s determination unless it was an “abuse of discretion.” State v. Hamilton, 827 P.2d 232, 239-40 (Utah 1992); see State v. Verde, 770 P.2d 116, 120 (Utah 1989); State v. Cloud, 722 P.2d 750, 752 (Utah 1986). | 2 | 3 |
State v. Waitkusgreen1 sentence2021To state the matter more precisely, we review the trial court’s 403 ruling admitting or denying admission to evidence by deciding whether . . . the trial court’s decision . . . was beyond the limits of reasonability.’” (quoting State v. Hamilton, 827 P.2d 232 , 239–40 (Utah 1992)). ¶53 In ineffective assistance of counsel cases, other jurisdictions have developed a standard of review that gives deference to a trial court’s prejudice determination, see, e.g., State v. Waitkus, 778 P.2d 1283, 1285 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989) (“We accord great deference to the trial court’s finding of lack of prejudice | 1 | 1 |
Arnold v. Grigsbygreen2 sentences2021See Arnold v. Grigsby, 2018 UT 14 , ¶ 25 n.5, 417 P.3d 606 (“‘In reviewing a trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of evidence under rule 403, we will not overturn the court’s determination unless it was an abuse of discretion. 2021See Arnold v. Grigsby, 2018 UT 14 , ¶ 25 n.5, 417 P.3d 606 (“‘In reviewing a trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of evidence under rule 403, we will not overturn the court’s determination unless it was an abuse of discretion. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cloudgreen2 sentences1993In reviewing a trial court's ruling on the admissibility of evidence under rule 403, we will not overturn the court's determination unless it was an "abuse of discretion." State v. Hamilton, 827 P.2d 232, 239-40 (Utah 1992); see State v. Verde, 770 P.2d 116, 120 (Utah 1989); State v. Cloud, 722 P.2d 750, 752 (Utah 1986). 1993In reviewing a trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of evidence under rule 403, we will not overturn the court’s determination unless it was an “abuse of discretion.” State v. Hamilton, 827 P.2d 232, 239-40 (Utah 1992); see State v. Verde, 770 P.2d 116, 120 (Utah 1989); State v. Cloud, 722 P.2d 750, 752 (Utah 1986). | 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. Ramirez
green
2 sentences2007That is, we decide "whether, as a matter of law, the trial court's decision that 'the unfairly prejudicial potential of the evidence outweighs [or does not outweigh] its probativeness' was beyond the limits of reasonability." Id. at 239-40 (quoting State v. Ramirez, 817 P.2d 774 , 781-82 n. 3 (Utah 1991)) (alteration in original). 1997Thus, we must decide "whether, as a matter of law, the trial court's decision that `the unfairly prejudicial potential of the evidence outweighs [or does not outweigh] its probativeness' was beyond the limits of reasonability." Id. at 239-40 (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Ramirez, 817 P.2d 774 , 781-82 n. 3 (Utah 1991)). | 3 | 1996–2007 |
State v. Nunez-Vazquez
green
2 sentences2024State v. Nunez-Vasquez, 2020 UT App 98, ¶ 58 , 468 P.3d 585 , cert. denied, 474 P.3d 945 (Utah 2020). ¶26 Under the first step, the district court assesses the probative value of the challenged evidence. 2024State v. Nunez-Vasquez, 2020 UT App 98, ¶ 58 , 468 P.3d 585 , cert. denied, 474 P.3d 945 (Utah 2020). ¶26 Under the first step, the district court assesses the probative value of the challenged evidence. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Lewis
green
1 sentence2024Because we affirm the court’s decision to exclude the recorded phone call under rule 403, we have no need to reach these other arguments. 20210661-CA 11 2024 UT App 96 State v. Lewis ANALYSIS ¶25 In determining the admissibility of evidence under rule 403 of the Utah Rules of Evidence, “[t]he court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.” This analysis generally consists of two | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Beverly
green
2 sentences2024State v. Beverly, 2018 UT 60, ¶ 23 , 435 P.3d 160 . 2024State v. Beverly, 2018 UT 60, ¶ 23 , 435 P.3d 160 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Francis v. State
green
1 sentence2021To state the matter more precisely, we review the trial court’s 403 ruling admitting or denying admission to evidence by deciding whether . . . the trial court’s decision . . . was beyond the limits of reasonability.’” (quoting State v. Hamilton, 827 P.2d 232 , 239–40 (Utah 1992)). ¶53 In ineffective assistance of counsel cases, other jurisdictions have developed a standard of review that gives deference to a trial court’s prejudice determination, see, e.g., State v. Waitkus, 778 P.2d 1283, 1285 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989) (“We accord great deference to the trial court’s finding of lack of prejudice | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Torres-Orellana
green
1 sentence2021To state the matter more precisely, we review the trial court’s 403 ruling admitting or denying admission to evidence by deciding whether . . . the trial court’s decision . . . was beyond the limits of reasonability.’” (quoting State v. Hamilton, 827 P.2d 232 , 239–40 (Utah 1992)). ¶53 In ineffective assistance of counsel cases, other jurisdictions have developed a standard of review that gives deference to a trial court’s prejudice determination, see, e.g., State v. Waitkus, 778 P.2d 1283, 1285 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989) (“We accord great deference to the trial court’s finding of lack of prejudice | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Wilson v. IHC Hospitals, Inc.
green
2 sentences2021R.R., 2001 UT 77, ¶ 33 , 31 P.3d 557 (citation omitted). ¶26 Finally, Sheppard contends that the district court erred when it granted Geneva Rock‘s motion in limine to exclude all evidence of negligence, a holding that implicitly invokes Utah Rule of Evidence 402.7 We typically ―review the admissibility of evidence under rule 402 for an abuse of discretion.‖ Wilson v. IHC Hosps., Inc., 2012 UT 43, ¶ 24 , 289 P.3d 369 . 2021R.R., 2001 UT 77, ¶ 33 , 31 P.3d 557 (citation omitted). ¶26 Finally, Sheppard contends that the district court erred when it granted Geneva Rock‘s motion in limine to exclude all evidence of negligence, a holding that implicitly invokes Utah Rule of Evidence 402.7 We typically ―review the admissibility of evidence under rule 402 for an abuse of discretion.‖ Wilson v. IHC Hosps., Inc., 2012 UT 43, ¶ 24 , 289 P.3d 369 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Brewer v. Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad
green
2 sentences2021R.R., 2001 UT 77, ¶ 33 , 31 P.3d 557 (citation omitted). ¶26 Finally, Sheppard contends that the district court erred when it granted Geneva Rock‘s motion in limine to exclude all evidence of negligence, a holding that implicitly invokes Utah Rule of Evidence 402.7 We typically ―review the admissibility of evidence under rule 402 for an abuse of discretion.‖ Wilson v. IHC Hosps., Inc., 2012 UT 43, ¶ 24 , 289 P.3d 369 . 2021R.R., 2001 UT 77, ¶ 33 , 31 P.3d 557 (citation omitted). ¶26 Finally, Sheppard contends that the district court erred when it granted Geneva Rock‘s motion in limine to exclude all evidence of negligence, a holding that implicitly invokes Utah Rule of Evidence 402.7 We typically ―review the admissibility of evidence under rule 402 for an abuse of discretion.‖ Wilson v. IHC Hosps., Inc., 2012 UT 43, ¶ 24 , 289 P.3d 369 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Rossetti v. United States
green
1 sentence2021To state the matter more precisely, we review the trial court’s 403 ruling admitting or denying admission to evidence by deciding whether . . . the trial court’s decision . . . was beyond the limits of reasonability.’” (quoting State v. Hamilton, 827 P.2d 232 , 239–40 (Utah 1992)). ¶53 In ineffective assistance of counsel cases, other jurisdictions have developed a standard of review that gives deference to a trial court’s prejudice determination, see, e.g., State v. Waitkus, 778 P.2d 1283, 1285 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989) (“We accord great deference to the trial court’s finding of lack of prejudice | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Verde
green
2 sentences2014In short, the trial court considering the admissibility of evidence under rule 403 seeks to balance two competing concerns, "excluding the ... evidence if its tendency to sustain a proper inference is outweighed by its propensity for an improper inference or for jury confusion about its real purpose." State v. Verde, 2012 UT 60, 118 , 296 P.3d 673 . 2014In short, the trial court considering the admissibility of evidence under rule 403 seeks to balance two competing concerns, "excluding the ... evidence if its tendency to sustain a proper inference is outweighed by its propensity for an improper inference or for jury confusion about its real purpose." State v. Verde, 2012 UT 60, 118 , 296 P.3d 673 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Fedorowicz
green
1 sentence2012Id. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
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.