lack instruction in Utah

2025According to the State, if Counsel would have requested the imperfect-self-defense instruction, then the jury 20230477-CA 9 2025 UT App 152 State v. Barlow would have had the “out” of convicting Barlow on a lesser included offense instead of acquitting him. ¶31 We need not address the parties’ deficient-performance arguments on this claim, however, because Barlow has not demonstrated that he was prejudiced by Counsel’s performance. ¶32 Barlow asserts that Counsel’s performance prejudiced him because, “even though the jury rejected perfect self-defense, there is a reasonable likelihood that the

2024This argument is inconsistent with current Utah law governing premises liability. ¶17 While the parties’ briefing focused on cases like House v. Armour of Am., Inc., 929 P.2d 340 (Utah 1996), and Feasel v. Tracker Marine LLC, 2021 UT 47 , 496 P.3d 95 , those are products liability cases—and this is a premises liability case.

2024This argument is inconsistent with current Utah law governing premises liability. ¶17 While the parties’ briefing focused on cases like House v. Armour of Am., Inc., 929 P.2d 340 (Utah 1996), and Feasel v. Tracker Marine LLC, 2021 UT 47 , 496 P.3d 95 , those are products liability cases—and this is a premises liability case.

2024This argument is inconsistent with current Utah law governing premises liability. ¶17 While the parties’ briefing focused on cases like House v. Armour of Am., Inc., 929 P.2d 340 (Utah 1996), and Feasel v. Tracker Marine LLC, 2021 UT 47 , 496 P.3d 95 , those are products liability cases—and this is a premises liability case.

2023Johnson again recognizes that this issue was not preserved; he contends that “the lack of the requirement of a mens rea of a specific intent to defraud is so egregious that the convictions should be vacated because [of] 20210838-CA 10 2023 UT App 145 State v. Johnson plain error and manifest injustice.” 4 Again, plain error requires an obvious error and prejudice.

2023Id. ¶24 Third, Johnson asserts that the jury instruction related to the timing of the order suspending him from the practice of law was erroneous.

2019He contended that he was “prejudiced by counsel’s failure to raise this issue in the trial court and by appellate counsel’s 20170158-CA 19 2019 UT App 142 Hattrich v. State failure to assert his right to raise the claim under the plea bargain, or under the doctrine of ineffective assistance of trial counsel.” The district court determined that Hattrich failed to show, “with specific facts or adequate legal analysis,” either that counsel’s performance was deficient or that the lack of a challenge to the warrantless arrest was prejudicial to his defense. ¶43 The State observes, and we agree, tha

2019“When a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is raised for the first time on appeal, there is no lower court ruling to review and we must decide whether the defendant was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel as a matter of law.” State v. Bonds, 2019 UT App 156, ¶ 20 , 450 P.3d 120 (cleaned up). 3 (…continued) trial cannot be preserved in a post-trial motion”).

2019“When a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is raised for the first time on appeal, there is no lower court ruling to review and we must decide whether the defendant was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel as a matter of law.” State v. Bonds, 2019 UT App 156, ¶ 20 , 450 P.3d 120 (cleaned up). 3 (…continued) trial cannot be preserved in a post-trial motion”).

2019State v. Fullerton, 2018 UT 49 , ¶ 49 n.15, 428 P.3d 1052 (reaffirming that “an objection that could have been raised at (continued…) 20181033-CA 5 2019 UT App 206 State v. Alires argues that, due to the lack of such an instruction, we “cannot be assured the jury was unanimous” as to which specific acts formed the basis for his conviction.

2019State v. Fullerton, 2018 UT 49 , ¶ 49 n.15, 428 P.3d 1052 (reaffirming that “an objection that could have been raised at (continued…) 20181033-CA 5 2019 UT App 206 State v. Alires argues that, due to the lack of such an instruction, we “cannot be assured the jury was unanimous” as to which specific acts formed the basis for his conviction.

2019State v. Fullerton, 2018 UT 49 , ¶ 49 n.15, 428 P.3d 1052 (reaffirming that “an objection that could have been raised at (continued…) 20181033-CA 5 2019 UT App 206 State v. Alires argues that, due to the lack of such an instruction, we “cannot be assured the jury was unanimous” as to which specific acts formed the basis for his conviction.

2018"When reviewing a decision made on one ground, we have the discretion to affirm the judgment on an alternative ground if it is apparent in the record." Madsen v. Washington Mutual Bank FSB , 2008 UT 69 , ¶ 26, 199 P.3d 898 (emphasis omitted). ¶77 IntegraCore argues that it is entitled to summary judgment on this issue because iDrive's USPS claim "is not supported by the terms of the Agreement." 13 While it is true there is no provision that says IntegraCore must use the USPS service, the Agreement also states that "[a]ll significant logistics decisions will flow through iDRIVE for review." iDr

2018"When reviewing a decision made on one ground, we have the discretion to affirm the judgment on an alternative ground if it is apparent in the record." Madsen v. Washington Mutual Bank FSB , 2008 UT 69 , ¶ 26, 199 P.3d 898 (emphasis omitted). ¶77 IntegraCore argues that it is entitled to summary judgment on this issue because iDrive's USPS claim "is not supported by the terms of the Agreement." 13 While it is true there is no provision that says IntegraCore must use the USPS service, the Agreement also states that "[a]ll significant logistics decisions will flow through iDRIVE for review." iDr

2014Cf. State v. Stringham, 2001 UT App 13, ¶ 17 , 17 P.3d 1153 ("Failure to give requested jury instructions constitutes reversible error only if their omission tends to mislead the jury to the prejudice of the complaining party or insufficiently or erroneously advises the jury on the law." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). ' 43 Second, Johnson contended that he is entitled to a new trial because the record on appeal does not include a verdict form on the lesser included offense of homicide by assault. "[Nlot every instance of a missing portion of the record necessitates reversal.

2014Cf. State v. Stringham, 2001 UT App 13, ¶ 17 , 17 P.3d 1153 ("Failure to give requested jury instructions constitutes reversible error only if their omission tends to mislead the jury to the prejudice of the complaining party or insufficiently or erroneously advises the jury on the law." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). ' 43 Second, Johnson contended that he is entitled to a new trial because the record on appeal does not include a verdict form on the lesser included offense of homicide by assault. "[Nlot every instance of a missing portion of the record necessitates reversal.

2014Cf. State v. Stringham, 2001 UT App 13, ¶ 17 , 17 P.3d 1153 ("Failure to give requested jury instructions constitutes reversible error only if their omission tends to mislead the jury to the prejudice of the complaining party or insufficiently or erroneously advises the jury on the law." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). ' 43 Second, Johnson contended that he is entitled to a new trial because the record on appeal does not include a verdict form on the lesser included offense of homicide by assault. "[Nlot every instance of a missing portion of the record necessitates reversal.

2014Cf. State v. Stringham, 2001 UT App 13, ¶ 17 , 17 P.3d 1153 ("Failure to give requested jury instructions constitutes reversible error only if their omission tends to mislead the jury to the prejudice of the complaining party or insufficiently or erroneously advises the jury on the law." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). ' 43 Second, Johnson contended that he is entitled to a new trial because the record on appeal does not include a verdict form on the lesser included offense of homicide by assault. "[Nlot every instance of a missing portion of the record necessitates reversal.

1995In some eases, the trial court must specifically consider the three Hutchison factors, and determine whether the evidence proves a lack of those factors, before dismissing the parental presumption. “[T]he parental presumption can be rebutted only by evidence establishing that a particular parent at a particular time generally lacks all three of the characteristics that give rise to the presumption_” Hutchison, 649 P.2d at 41 .

1991Utah Rule of Criminal Procedure 20 provides that counsel “state his objections to the actions of the court and the reasons therefor.” See also Doe v. Hafen, 772 P.2d at 458 .