15 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2024 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. Dunngreen2 sentences2018"An ineffective assistance of counsel claim raised for the first time on appeal presents a question of law." State v. Clark , 2004 UT 25 , ¶ 6, 89 P.3d 162 . ¶33 Lastly, Defendant contends that "the cumulative effect of the several errors committed in the trial court deprived [him] of his right to a fair trial." "We will reverse a conviction under this doctrine when 'the cumulative effect of the several errors undermines our confidence ... that a fair trial was had.' " State v. Lomu , 2014 UT App 42 , ¶ 7, 321 P.3d 235 (omission in original) (quoting State v. Dunn , 850 P.2d 1201 , 1229 (Utah 2017“An ineffective assistance of counsel claim raised for the first time on appeal presents a question of law.” State v. Clark, 2004 UT 25, ¶ 6 , 89 P.3d 162 . ¶33 Lastly, Defendant contends that “the cumulative effect of the several errors committed in the trial court deprived [him] of his right to a fail) trial,” “We will reverse a conviction under this doctrine when ‘the cumulative effect of the several errors undermines our confidence ... that a fair trial was had.’ ” State v. Lomu, 2014 UT App. 42, ¶ 7 , 321 P.3d 235 (omission in original) (quoting State v. Dunn, 850 P.2d 1201, 1229 (Utah 19 | 2 | 3 |
Strickland v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2024To secure reversal of a conviction under a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must satisfy the two-part test set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). ¶29 “First, the defendant must show that counsel’s performance was deficient.” Id. at 687 . 2024To secure reversal of a conviction under a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must satisfy the two-part test set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). ¶29 “First, the defendant must show that counsel’s performance was deficient.” Id. at 687 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hon. Boydengreen1 sentence2023Boyden, 2019 UT 11, ¶¶ 2, 37 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Gonzalezgreen1 sentence2019See, e.g., State v. Gonzalez, 71 A.3d 681, 685 (Conn. App. Ct. 2013) (affirming a conviction for violation of a state statute criminalizing resistance to the execution of search warrants, in a case where the defendant had refused to open his mouth for a buccal swab authorized by a valid search warrant). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Harrisongreen1 sentence2012See id. at 781, 789 . 15 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Dibellogreen1 sentence2011See, e.g., State v. Dibello, 780 P.2d 1221, 1230-31 (Utah 1989) (holding that the portion of a video recording that lingered on the deceased's body should not have been admitted because the cause of death had been established, but concluding that the admission of the video was harmless); Lafferty, 749 P.2d at 1257 (determining that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting gruesome photographs of the victims' corpses where they "convey[ed] little information beyond the fact that the victims died violent and bloody deaths" but nevertheless upholding the conviction because the error was | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cloudgreen1 sentence2011See, e.g., State v. Dibello, 780 P.2d 1221, 1230-31 (Utah 1989) (holding that the portion of a video recording that lingered on the deceased's body should not have been admitted because the cause of death had been established, but concluding that the admission of the video was harmless); Lafferty, 749 P.2d at 1257 (determining that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting gruesome photographs of the victims' corpses where they "convey[ed] little information beyond the fact that the victims died violent and bloody deaths" but nevertheless upholding the conviction because the error was | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bisnergreen2 sentences2011See State v. Bis-ner, 2001 UT 99 , T 36, 37 P.3d 1073 . 2011See State v. Bis-ner, 2001 UT 99 , T 36, 37 P.3d 1073 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Laffertygreen1 sentence2011See, e.g., State v. Dibello, 780 P.2d 1221, 1230-31 (Utah 1989) (holding that the portion of a video recording that lingered on the deceased's body should not have been admitted because the cause of death had been established, but concluding that the admission of the video was harmless); Lafferty, 749 P.2d at 1257 (determining that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting gruesome photographs of the victims' corpses where they "convey[ed] little information beyond the fact that the victims died violent and bloody deaths" but nevertheless upholding the conviction because the error was | 1 | 1 |
McCarthy v. Bronsongreen2 sentences2008Further, these amendments came after the United States Supreme Court opinions distinguishing between elements and enhancements, see, e.g., Almendarez-Torres, 523 U.S. at 229-35 , 118 S.Ct. 1219 , and presumably were made with knowledge of that authority, see Conroy v. Aniskoff, 507 U.S. 511, 516 , 113 S.Ct. 1562 , 123 L.Ed.2d 229 (1993) (assuming Congress was familiar with prior judicial opinions); McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 136, 140 , 111 S.Ct. 1737 , 114 L.Ed.2d 194 (1991) ("We certainly presume that ... when Congress selected this language, our elected representatives were familiar with 2008Further, these amendments came after the United States Supreme Court opinions distinguishing between elements and enhancements, see, e.g., Almendarez-Torres, 523 U.S. at 229-35 , 118 S.Ct. 1219 , and presumably were made with knowledge of that authority, see Conroy v. Aniskoff, 507 U.S. 511, 516 , 113 S.Ct. 1562 , 123 L.Ed.2d 229 (1993) (assuming Congress was familiar with prior judicial opinions); McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 136, 140 , 111 S.Ct. 1737 , 114 L.Ed.2d 194 (1991) ("We certainly presume that ... when Congress selected this language, our elected representatives were familiar with | 1 | 1 |
Apprendi v. New Jerseygreen2 sentences2008See id. at 489 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 (suggesting the prior conviction exception was incorrectly decided); Rangel-Reyes v. United States, 547 U.S. 1200, 1201 , 126 S.Ct. 2873 , 2874, 165 L.Ed.2d 910 (2006) (denying cert.) (Thomas, J., dissenting) ("[I]t has long been clear that a majority of this Court now rejects that exception."). 2008See id. at 489 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 (suggesting the prior conviction exception was incorrectly decided); Rangel-Reyes v. United States, 547 U.S. 1200, 1201 , 126 S.Ct. 2873 , 2874, 165 L.Ed.2d 910 (2006) (denying cert.) (Thomas, J., dissenting) ("[I]t has long been clear that a majority of this Court now rejects that exception."). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Menziesgreen2 sentences1997Concededly, it will be much more difficult to establish reversible error under this rule, but the cost of reversing a conviction for an error of the trial judge that is corrected by a peremptory challenge with no demonstrable prejudice to the defendant is too great, if not irrational. 889 P.2d at 407 (Stewart, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). 1997Concededly, it will be much more difficult to establish reversible error under this rule, but the cost of reversing a conviction for an error of the trial judge that is corrected by a peremptory challenge with no demonstrable prejudice to the defendant is too great, if not irrational. 889 P.2d at 407 (Stewart, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Johnsongreen1 sentence1990In view of the untimeliness of defense counsel’s later objection and the fact that we are constrained by *1118 rule 30(a) of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure from reversing a conviction because of an error which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties, we do not find that there are sufficient grounds here for reversing the verdict. “[W]e will not reverse a conviction unless the error is substantial and prejudicial in the sense that there is a reasonable likelihood that in its absence there would have been a more favorable result for the defendant.” State v. Johnson, 771 P.2d | 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. Lomu
green
2 sentences2018"An ineffective assistance of counsel claim raised for the first time on appeal presents a question of law." State v. Clark , 2004 UT 25 , ¶ 6, 89 P.3d 162 . ¶33 Lastly, Defendant contends that "the cumulative effect of the several errors committed in the trial court deprived [him] of his right to a fair trial." "We will reverse a conviction under this doctrine when 'the cumulative effect of the several errors undermines our confidence ... that a fair trial was had.' " State v. Lomu , 2014 UT App 42 , ¶ 7, 321 P.3d 235 (omission in original) (quoting State v. Dunn , 850 P.2d 1201 , 1229 (Utah 2018"An ineffective assistance of counsel claim raised for the first time on appeal presents a question of law." State v. Clark , 2004 UT 25 , ¶ 6, 89 P.3d 162 . ¶33 Lastly, Defendant contends that "the cumulative effect of the several errors committed in the trial court deprived [him] of his right to a fair trial." "We will reverse a conviction under this doctrine when 'the cumulative effect of the several errors undermines our confidence ... that a fair trial was had.' " State v. Lomu , 2014 UT App 42 , ¶ 7, 321 P.3d 235 (omission in original) (quoting State v. Dunn , 850 P.2d 1201 , 1229 (Utah | 2 | 2017–2018 |
State v. Clark
green
2 sentences2018"An ineffective assistance of counsel claim raised for the first time on appeal presents a question of law." State v. Clark , 2004 UT 25 , ¶ 6, 89 P.3d 162 . ¶33 Lastly, Defendant contends that "the cumulative effect of the several errors committed in the trial court deprived [him] of his right to a fair trial." "We will reverse a conviction under this doctrine when 'the cumulative effect of the several errors undermines our confidence ... that a fair trial was had.' " State v. Lomu , 2014 UT App 42 , ¶ 7, 321 P.3d 235 (omission in original) (quoting State v. Dunn , 850 P.2d 1201 , 1229 (Utah 2018"An ineffective assistance of counsel claim raised for the first time on appeal presents a question of law." State v. Clark , 2004 UT 25 , ¶ 6, 89 P.3d 162 . ¶33 Lastly, Defendant contends that "the cumulative effect of the several errors committed in the trial court deprived [him] of his right to a fair trial." "We will reverse a conviction under this doctrine when 'the cumulative effect of the several errors undermines our confidence ... that a fair trial was had.' " State v. Lomu , 2014 UT App 42 , ¶ 7, 321 P.3d 235 (omission in original) (quoting State v. Dunn , 850 P.2d 1201 , 1229 (Utah | 2 | 2017–2018 |
State v. Fouse
green
2 sentences2023In State v. Fouse, 2014 UT App 29 , 319 P.3d 778 , cert. denied, 329 P.3d 36 (Utah 2014), this court affirmed a conviction for violation of a protective order where the defendant mailed envelopes to the victim’s sisters rather than to the victim, his estranged wife. 2023In State v. Fouse, 2014 UT App 29 , 319 P.3d 778 , cert. denied, 329 P.3d 36 (Utah 2014), this court affirmed a conviction for violation of a protective order where the defendant mailed envelopes to the victim’s sisters rather than to the victim, his estranged wife. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Ringstad
green
2 sentences2020“We will reverse a conviction under this doctrine when the cumulative effect of the several errors undermines our confidence that a fair trial was had.” State v. Ringstad, 2018 UT App 66, ¶ 33 , 424 P.3d 1052 (cleaned up). 2020“We will reverse a conviction under this doctrine when the cumulative effect of the several errors undermines our confidence that a fair trial was had.” State v. Ringstad, 2018 UT App 66, ¶ 33 , 424 P.3d 1052 (cleaned up). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Maas
green
2 sentences2018Further, even if we find that the rule established in Doyle has been violated, we will not reverse a conviction if the violation is harmless "beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Maas , 1999 UT App 325 , ¶ 14, 991 P.2d 1108 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). ¶57 Here, Defendant alleges that Officer's statement indicating that Defendant invoked his right to remain silent was used to impeach Defendant, placing it squarely within Doyle 's prohibition. 2018Further, even if we find that the rule established in Doyle has been violated, we will not reverse a conviction if the violation is harmless "beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Maas , 1999 UT App 325 , ¶ 14, 991 P.2d 1108 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). ¶57 Here, Defendant alleges that Officer's statement indicating that Defendant invoked his right to remain silent was used to impeach Defendant, placing it squarely within Doyle 's prohibition. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Conroy v. Aniskoff
green
2 sentences2008Further, these amendments came after the United States Supreme Court opinions distinguishing between elements and enhancements, see, e.g., Almendarez-Torres, 523 U.S. at 229-35 , 118 S.Ct. 1219 , and presumably were made with knowledge of that authority, see Conroy v. Aniskoff, 507 U.S. 511, 516 , 113 S.Ct. 1562 , 123 L.Ed.2d 229 (1993) (assuming Congress was familiar with prior judicial opinions); McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 136, 140 , 111 S.Ct. 1737 , 114 L.Ed.2d 194 (1991) ("We certainly presume that ... when Congress selected this language, our elected representatives were familiar with 2008Further, these amendments came after the United States Supreme Court opinions distinguishing between elements and enhancements, see, e.g., Almendarez-Torres, 523 U.S. at 229-35 , 118 S.Ct. 1219 , and presumably were made with knowledge of that authority, see Conroy v. Aniskoff, 507 U.S. 511, 516 , 113 S.Ct. 1562 , 123 L.Ed.2d 229 (1993) (assuming Congress was familiar with prior judicial opinions); McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 136, 140 , 111 S.Ct. 1737 , 114 L.Ed.2d 194 (1991) ("We certainly presume that ... when Congress selected this language, our elected representatives were familiar with | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Almendarez-Torres v. United States
red
2 sentences2008Further, these amendments came after the United States Supreme Court opinions distinguishing between elements and enhancements, see, e.g., Almendarez-Torres, 523 U.S. at 229-35 , 118 S.Ct. 1219 , and presumably were made with knowledge of that authority, see Conroy v. Aniskoff, 507 U.S. 511, 516 , 113 S.Ct. 1562 , 123 L.Ed.2d 229 (1993) (assuming Congress was familiar with prior judicial opinions); McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 136, 140 , 111 S.Ct. 1737 , 114 L.Ed.2d 194 (1991) ("We certainly presume that ... when Congress selected this language, our elected representatives were familiar with 2008Further, these amendments came after the United States Supreme Court opinions distinguishing between elements and enhancements, see, e.g., Almendarez-Torres, 523 U.S. at 229-35 , 118 S.Ct. 1219 , and presumably were made with knowledge of that authority, see Conroy v. Aniskoff, 507 U.S. 511, 516 , 113 S.Ct. 1562 , 123 L.Ed.2d 229 (1993) (assuming Congress was familiar with prior judicial opinions); McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 136, 140 , 111 S.Ct. 1737 , 114 L.Ed.2d 194 (1991) ("We certainly presume that ... when Congress selected this language, our elected representatives were familiar with | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Texas v. Penry
green
2 sentences2008See id. at 489 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 (suggesting the prior conviction exception was incorrectly decided); Rangel-Reyes v. United States, 547 U.S. 1200, 1201 , 126 S.C. 2873 , 2874, 165 L.Ed.2d 910 (2006) (denying cert.) (Thomas, J., dissenting) ("[lt has long been clear that a majority of this Court now rejects that exception."). 2008See id. at 489 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 (suggesting the prior conviction exception was incorrectly decided); Rangel-Reyes v. United States, 547 U.S. 1200, 1201 , 126 S.Ct. 2873 , 2874, 165 L.Ed.2d 910 (2006) (denying cert.) (Thomas, J., dissenting) ("[I]t has long been clear that a majority of this Court now rejects that exception."). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Olseth v. Larson
green
2 sentences2008Further, these amendments came after the United States Supreme Court opinions distinguishing between elements and enhancements, see, e.g., Almendarez-Torres, 523 U.S. at 229-35 , 118 S.Ct. 1219 , and presumably were made with knowledge of that authority, see Conroy v. Aniskoff, 507 U.S. 511, 516 , 113 S.Ct. 1562 , 123 L.Ed.2d 229 (1993) (assuming Congress was familiar with prior judicial opinions); McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 136, 140 , 111 S.Ct. 1737 , 114 L.Ed.2d 194 (1991) ("We certainly presume that ... when Congress selected this language, our elected representatives were familiar with 2008Further, these amendments came after the United States Supreme Court opinions distinguishing between elements and enhancements, see, e.g., Almendarez-Torres, 523 U.S. at 229-35 , 118 S.Ct. 1219 , and presumably were made with knowledge of that authority, see Conroy v. Aniskoff, 507 U.S. 511, 516 , 113 S.Ct. 1562 , 123 L.Ed.2d 229 (1993) (assuming Congress was familiar with prior judicial opinions); McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 136, 140 , 111 S.Ct. 1737 , 114 L.Ed.2d 194 (1991) ("We certainly presume that ... when Congress selected this language, our elected representatives were familiar with | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Worley v. Pennsylvania Public School Employees' Retirement Board
green
1 sentence2008Further, these amendments came after the United States Supreme Court opinions distinguishing between elements and enhancements, see e.g., Almendares-Torres, 523 U.S. at 229-35 , 118 S.Ct. 1219 , and presumably were made with knowledge of that authority, see Comroy v. Amiskoff, 507 U.S. 511, 516 , 118 S.Ct. 1562 , 128 LEd.2d 229 (19983) (assuming Congress was familiar with prior judicial opinions); McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 186 , 140, 111 S.Ct. 1737 , 114 L.Ed.2d 194 (1991) ("We certainly presume that ... when Congress selected this language, our elected representatives were familiar with o | 1 | 2008–2008 |
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.