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 2002–2023 1 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 sentences2017We conclude that, although the prejudice from any single error is elusive when viewed solely through the doctrines of plain error and ineffective assistance of counsel, “the cumulative effect of the several errors undermines our confidence that a fair trial was had.” Cf. State v. Dunn, 850 P.2d 1201, 1229 (Utah 1993) (ellipsis, citation, and internal quotation marks omitted). 2017We conclude that, although the prejudice from any single error is elusive when viewed solely through the doctrines of plain error and ineffective assistance of counsel, “the cumulative effect of the several errors undermines our confidence that a fair trial was had.” Cf. State v. Dunn, 850 P.2d 1201, 1229 (Utah 1993) (ellipsis, citation, and internal quotation marks omitted). | 4 | 5 |
State v. Emmettgreen2 sentences2010A. Plain Error ¶ 27 King's "failure to object to improper remarks" waives his prosecutorial misconduct claim unless the remarks reach the level of plain error, State v. Emmett, 839 P.2d 781, 785 (Utah 1992), meaning that "an error exists [that] should have been obvious to the trial court" and that "the error was harmful," State v. Dunn, 850 P.2d 1201, 1208-09 (Utah 1993). 2002To obtain reversal under these doe-trines, Terril must show either (1) that the prosecutor's comments were so obviously improper that the trial court had an opportunity to address the error, see Emmett, 839 P.2d at 785 ; State v. Dunn, 850 P.2d 1201, 1208 (Utah 1993), or (2) that in failing to object to the prosecutor's remarks, his counsel's performance "fell below an objective standard of reasonable professional judgment," State v. Chacon, 962 P.2d 48, 50 (Utah 1998). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Callihamgreen2 sentences2014See State v. Calliham, 2002 UT 86, ¶ 62 , 55 P.3d 573 . 2014See State v. Calliham, 2002 UT 86, ¶ 62 , 55 P.3d 573 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Sellersgreen2 sentences2013See Sellers, 2011 UT App 38, ¶¶ 7-9 , 248 P.3d 70 . 2013See Sellers, 2011 UT App 38, ¶¶ 7-9 , 248 P.3d 70 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cramgreen2 sentences2013See generally State v. Cram, 2002 UT 37, ¶ 4 , 46 P.3d 230 (listing plain error, exceptional circumstances, and ineffective assistance of counsel as exceptions to the preservation rule). 2013See generally State v. Cram, 2002 UT 37, ¶ 4 , 46 P.3d 230 (listing plain error, exceptional circumstances, and ineffective assistance of counsel as exceptions to the preservation rule). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Troygreen1 sentence2002Improper remarks will be deemed harmful if the jury was, "under the cireumstances of the particular case, probably influenced by those remarks." State v. Troy, 688 P.2d 483, 486 (Utah 1984) (quoting State v. Valdes, 30 Utah 2d 54, 60 , 513 P.2d 422, 426 (1973)); see also State v. Kohl, 2000 UT 35, ¶ 22 , 999 P.2d 7 (stating prosecutor's statements harmful if they manifest error that " 'is substantial and prejudicial such that *594 there is a reasonable likelihood that, in its absence, there would have been a more favorable result.'" (quoting State v. Longshaw, 961 P.2d 925, 928 (Utah Ct.App.19 | 1 | 1 |
State v. Longshawgreen1 sentence2002Improper remarks will be deemed harmful if the jury was, "under the cireumstances of the particular case, probably influenced by those remarks." State v. Troy, 688 P.2d 483, 486 (Utah 1984) (quoting State v. Valdes, 30 Utah 2d 54, 60 , 513 P.2d 422, 426 (1973)); see also State v. Kohl, 2000 UT 35, ¶ 22 , 999 P.2d 7 (stating prosecutor's statements harmful if they manifest error that " 'is substantial and prejudicial such that *594 there is a reasonable likelihood that, in its absence, there would have been a more favorable result.'" (quoting State v. Longshaw, 961 P.2d 925, 928 (Utah Ct.App.19 | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kohlgreen2 sentences2002Improper remarks will be deemed harmful if the jury was, "under the cireumstances of the particular case, probably influenced by those remarks." State v. Troy, 688 P.2d 483, 486 (Utah 1984) (quoting State v. Valdes, 30 Utah 2d 54, 60 , 513 P.2d 422, 426 (1973)); see also State v. Kohl, 2000 UT 35, ¶ 22 , 999 P.2d 7 (stating prosecutor's statements harmful if they manifest error that " 'is substantial and prejudicial such that *594 there is a reasonable likelihood that, in its absence, there would have been a more favorable result.'" (quoting State v. Longshaw, 961 P.2d 925, 928 (Utah Ct.App.19 2002Improper remarks will be deemed harmful if the jury was, "under the cireumstances of the particular case, probably influenced by those remarks." State v. Troy, 688 P.2d 483, 486 (Utah 1984) (quoting State v. Valdes, 30 Utah 2d 54, 60 , 513 P.2d 422, 426 (1973)); see also State v. Kohl, 2000 UT 35, ¶ 22 , 999 P.2d 7 (stating prosecutor's statements harmful if they manifest error that " 'is substantial and prejudicial such that *594 there is a reasonable likelihood that, in its absence, there would have been a more favorable result.'" (quoting State v. Longshaw, 961 P.2d 925, 928 (Utah Ct.App.19 | 1 | 1 |
State v. Chacongreen1 sentence2002To obtain reversal under these doe-trines, Terril must show either (1) that the prosecutor's comments were so obviously improper that the trial court had an opportunity to address the error, see Emmett, 839 P.2d at 785 ; State v. Dunn, 850 P.2d 1201, 1208 (Utah 1993), or (2) that in failing to object to the prosecutor's remarks, his counsel's performance "fell below an objective standard of reasonable professional judgment," State v. Chacon, 962 P.2d 48, 50 (Utah 1998). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Valdezgreen2 sentences2002Improper remarks will be deemed harmful if the jury was, "under the cireumstances of the particular case, probably influenced by those remarks." State v. Troy, 688 P.2d 483, 486 (Utah 1984) (quoting State v. Valdes, 30 Utah 2d 54, 60 , 513 P.2d 422, 426 (1973)); see also State v. Kohl, 2000 UT 35, ¶ 22 , 999 P.2d 7 (stating prosecutor's statements harmful if they manifest error that " 'is substantial and prejudicial such that *594 there is a reasonable likelihood that, in its absence, there would have been a more favorable result.'" (quoting State v. Longshaw, 961 P.2d 925, 928 (Utah Ct.App.19 2002Improper remarks will be deemed harmful if the jury was, "under the cireumstances of the particular case, probably influenced by those remarks." State v. Troy, 688 P.2d 483, 486 (Utah 1984) (quoting State v. Valdes, 30 Utah 2d 54, 60 , 513 P.2d 422, 426 (1973)); see also State v. Kohl, 2000 UT 35, ¶ 22 , 999 P.2d 7 (stating prosecutor's statements harmful if they manifest error that " 'is substantial and prejudicial such that *594 there is a reasonable likelihood that, in its absence, there would have been a more favorable result.'" (quoting State v. Longshaw, 961 P.2d 925, 928 (Utah Ct.App.19 | 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. Griffin
green
2 sentences2017State v. Holgate, 2000 UT 74, ¶ 13 , 10 P.3d 346 (plain error); State v. Griffin, 2016 UT 33, ¶ 22 , 384 P.3d 186 (ineffective assistance of counsel). ¶29 Other rules of preservation or waiver are set forth in the rules of procedure promulgated by this court. 2017State v. Holgate, 2000 UT 74, ¶ 13 , 10 P.3d 346 (plain error); State v. Griffin, 2016 UT 33, ¶ 22 , 384 P.3d 186 (ineffective assistance of counsel). ¶29 Other rules of preservation or waiver are set forth in the rules of procedure promulgated by this court. | 3 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Holgate
green
2 sentences2017State v. Holgate, 2000 UT 74, ¶ 13 , 10 P.3d 346 (plain error); State v. Griffin, 2016 UT 33, ¶ 22 , 384 P.3d 186 (ineffective assistance of counsel). ¶29 Other rules of preservation or waiver are set forth in the rules of procedure promulgated by this court. 2017State v. Holgate, 2000 UT 74, ¶ 13 , 10 P.3d 346 (plain error); State v. Griffin, 2016 UT 33, ¶ 22 , 384 P.3d 186 (ineffective assistance of counsel). ¶29 Other rules of preservation or waiver are set forth in the rules of procedure promulgated by this court. | 3 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Low
green
2 sentences2013"When a party fails to preserve an issue for appeal, we will address the issue only if (1) the appellant establishes that the district court committed plain error, (2) exceptional cireumstances exist, or (3) in some situations, if the appellant raises a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to preserve the issue." State v. Low, 2008 UT 58, ¶ 19 , 192 P.3d 867 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). 113 McNeil also asserts the hearsay and best evidence claims under the doctrines of plain error and ineffective assistance of counsel. 2013"When a party fails to preserve an issue for appeal, we will address the issue only if (1) the appellant establishes that the district court committed plain error, (2) exceptional cireumstances exist, or (3) in some situations, if the appellant raises a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to preserve the issue." State v. Low, 2008 UT 58, ¶ 19 , 192 P.3d 867 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). 113 McNeil also asserts the hearsay and best evidence claims under the doctrines of plain error and ineffective assistance of counsel. | 2 | 2012–2013 |
State v. Maestas
green
2 sentences2023“In considering an insufficiency of the evidence claim, we review the evidence and all inferences which may reasonably be drawn from it in the light most favorable to the verdict of the jury.” State v. Maestas, 2012 UT 46, ¶ 302 , 299 P.3d 892 (cleaned up). 2023“In considering an insufficiency of the evidence claim, we review the evidence and all inferences which may reasonably be drawn from it in the light most favorable to the verdict of the jury.” State v. Maestas, 2012 UT 46, ¶ 302 , 299 P.3d 892 (cleaned up). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Malaga
green
1 sentence2023However, when a defendant fails to preserve an assertion of erroneous jury instructions, we “address purported errors made in the jury instructions under the doctrines of plain error/manifest injustice, exceptional circumstances, or ineffective assistance of counsel.” See id. ¶25 Fourth, Johnson claims that his convictions were not supported by substantial evidence. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Johnson
green
2 sentences2019Defense counsel did not request these remedies at trial, and Roberts asks us to review this unpreserved issue under the doctrines of plain error and ineffective assistance of counsel. 3 See State v. Johnson , 2017 UT 76 , ¶ 19, 416 P.3d 443 (explaining that plain error and ineffective assistance of counsel are exceptions to the preservation requirement). 2019Defense counsel did not request these remedies at trial, and Roberts asks us to review this unpreserved issue under the doctrines of plain error and ineffective assistance of counsel. 3 See State v. Johnson , 2017 UT 76 , ¶ 19, 416 P.3d 443 (explaining that plain error and ineffective assistance of counsel are exceptions to the preservation requirement). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Martinez-Castellanos
green
1 sentence2017We therefore vacate Martinez-Castellanos’ convictions and remand for a new trial. 20130432-CA 14 2017 UT App 13 State v. Martinez-Castellanos I. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Welborn
green
2 sentences2012In reviewing a trial court's decision for plain error, we consider "whether ') [aln error exists; (M) the error should have been obvious to the trial court; and (#) the error is harmful" " See State v. Welborn, 2012 UT App 5, ¶ 4 , 268 P.3d 881 (mem.) (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Dunn, 850 P.2d 1201, 1208 (Utah 1993)). 2012In reviewing a trial court's decision for plain error, we consider "whether ') [aln error exists; (M) the error should have been obvious to the trial court; and (#) the error is harmful" " See State v. Welborn, 2012 UT App 5, ¶ 4 , 268 P.3d 881 (mem.) (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Dunn, 850 P.2d 1201, 1208 (Utah 1993)). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Weaver
green
2 sentences2012State v. Low, 2008 UT 58, ¶ 19 , 192 P.3d 867 (quoting State v. Weaver, 2005 UT 49, ¶ 18 , 122 P.3d 566 ; State v. Hansen, 2002 UT 114 , ¶ 21 n. 2, 61 P.3d 1062 ). 114 Sessions asks us to address his claims under the doctrines of plain error and ineffective assistance of counsel. 2012State v. Low, 2008 UT 58, ¶ 19 , 192 P.3d 867 (quoting State v. Weaver, 2005 UT 49, ¶ 18 , 122 P.3d 566 ; State v. Hansen, 2002 UT 114 , ¶ 21 n. 2, 61 P.3d 1062 ). 114 Sessions asks us to address his claims under the doctrines of plain error and ineffective assistance of counsel. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Hansen
green
2 sentences2012State v. Low, 2008 UT 58, ¶ 19 , 192 P.3d 867 (quoting State v. Weaver, 2005 UT 49, ¶ 18 , 122 P.3d 566 ; State v. Hansen, 2002 UT 114 , ¶ 21 n. 2, 61 P.3d 1062 ). 114 Sessions asks us to address his claims under the doctrines of plain error and ineffective assistance of counsel. 2012State v. Low, 2008 UT 58, ¶ 19 , 192 P.3d 867 (quoting State v. Weaver, 2005 UT 49, ¶ 18 , 122 P.3d 566 ; State v. Hansen, 2002 UT 114 , ¶ 21 n. 2, 61 P.3d 1062 ). 114 Sessions asks us to address his claims under the doctrines of plain error and ineffective assistance of counsel. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Parker
green
2 sentences2007Under the plain error doctrine, we will reverse the trial court's ruling only if "`(i) [a]n error exists; (ii) the error should have been obvious to the trial court; and (iii) the error is harmful, i.e., absent the error, there is a reasonable likelihood of a more favorable outcome for [the defendant].'" State v. Hassan, 2004 UT 99, ¶ 10 , 108 P.3d 695 (quoting State v. Parker, 2000 UT 51, ¶ 7 , 4 P.3d 778 ). 2007Under the plain error doctrine, we will reverse the trial court's ruling only if "`(i) [a]n error exists; (ii) the error should have been obvious to the trial court; and (iii) the error is harmful, i.e., absent the error, there is a reasonable likelihood of a more favorable outcome for [the defendant].'" State v. Hassan, 2004 UT 99, ¶ 10 , 108 P.3d 695 (quoting State v. Parker, 2000 UT 51, ¶ 7 , 4 P.3d 778 ). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Hassan
green
2 sentences2007Under the plain error doctrine, we will reverse the trial court's ruling only if "`(i) [a]n error exists; (ii) the error should have been obvious to the trial court; and (iii) the error is harmful, i.e., absent the error, there is a reasonable likelihood of a more favorable outcome for [the defendant].'" State v. Hassan, 2004 UT 99, ¶ 10 , 108 P.3d 695 (quoting State v. Parker, 2000 UT 51, ¶ 7 , 4 P.3d 778 ). 2007Under the plain error doctrine, we will reverse the trial court's ruling only if "`(i) [a]n error exists; (ii) the error should have been obvious to the trial court; and (iii) the error is harmful, i.e., absent the error, there is a reasonable likelihood of a more favorable outcome for [the defendant].'" State v. Hassan, 2004 UT 99, ¶ 10 , 108 P.3d 695 (quoting State v. Parker, 2000 UT 51, ¶ 7 , 4 P.3d 778 ). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
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.