14 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. Hackfordgreen2 sentences2019In determining whether an error was prejudicial, we consider a host of factors, including 20170318-CA 11 2019 UT App 167 State v. Bowden whether the evidence was cumulative, whether there was corroborating or contradictory evidence, and “the overall strength of the prosecution’s case.” State v. Hackford, 737 P.2d 200, 205 (Utah 1987) (quotation simplified). 1994In determining whether an error is harmful, that is, whether the likelihood of a different outcome is sufficiently high to undermine confidence in the verdict, we look at “a host of factors, including ... the overall strength of the State’s case.” Hamilton, 827 P.2d at 240 (citing State v. Hackford, 737 P.2d 200, 205 (Utah 1987) (evidence of prior bad act was not so great when compared to other evidence of defendant’s guilt)); Archuleta, 850 P.2d at 1246 (jury instruction error that required invalidation of one of four aggravating circumstances in death penalty ease was not harmful since other | 5 | 5 |
State v. Hamiltongreen2 sentences2016"In making this determination, we consider a host of factors including, among others, the importance of the [evidence] to the prosecution's case and the overall strength of the State's case." State v. Hamilton, 827 P2d 232, 240 (Utah 1992). 1994In determining whether an error is harmful, that is, whether the likelihood of a different outcome is sufficiently high to undermine confidence in the verdict, we look at “a host of factors, including ... the overall strength of the State’s case.” Hamilton, 827 P.2d at 240 (citing State v. Hackford, 737 P.2d 200, 205 (Utah 1987) (evidence of prior bad act was not so great when compared to other evidence of defendant’s guilt)); Archuleta, 850 P.2d at 1246 (jury instruction error that required invalidation of one of four aggravating circumstances in death penalty ease was not harmful since other | 1 | 2 |
Hoggan v. Hoggangreen2 sentences2012See Hoggan, 2007 UT 78 , ¶ 11 n. 2, 169 P.3d 750 . 2012See Hoggan, 2007 UT 78 , ¶ 11 n. 2, 169 P.3d 750 . | 1 | 2 |
State v. Drommondgreen2 sentences2023Whether an error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt depends on a host of factors, including “the importance of the witness’[s] testimony in the prosecution’s case, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimony of the witness on material points, the extent of cross-examination otherwise permitted, and, of course, the overall strength of the prosecution’s case.” Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. at 684 ; see also State v. Drommond, 2020 UT 50, ¶ 105 , 469 P.3d 1056 . ¶41 Here, Emily was, of course, the key prosecution witness to the 2023Whether an error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt depends on a host of factors, including “the importance of the witness’[s] testimony in the prosecution’s case, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimony of the witness on material points, the extent of cross-examination otherwise permitted, and, of course, the overall strength of the prosecution’s case.” Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. at 684 ; see also State v. Drommond, 2020 UT 50, ¶ 105 , 469 P.3d 1056 . ¶41 Here, Emily was, of course, the key prosecution witness to the | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lujangreen2 sentences2016Whether an error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in a particular case depends on a host of factors, including “the importance of the witness’!#] testimony in the prosecution’s case, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimony of the witness on material points, the extent of cross-examination otherwise permitted, and, of course, the overall strength of the prosecution’s case.” Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 684 , 106 S.Ct. 1431 , 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986); see also Lujan, 2015 UT App 199, ¶ 17 , 357 P.3d 20 (ci 2016Whether an error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in a particular case depends on a host of factors, including “the importance of the witness’!#] testimony in the prosecution’s case, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimony of the witness on material points, the extent of cross-examination otherwise permitted, and, of course, the overall strength of the prosecution’s case.” Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 684 , 106 S.Ct. 1431 , 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986); see also Lujan, 2015 UT App 199, ¶ 17 , 357 P.3d 20 (ci | 1 | 1 |
State v. Villarrealgreen1 sentence2016Whether an error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in a particular case depends on a host of factors, including “the importance of the witness’!#] testimony in the prosecution’s case, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimony of the witness on material points, the extent of cross-examination otherwise permitted, and, of course, the overall strength of the prosecution’s case.” Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 684 , 106 S.Ct. 1431 , 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986); see also Lujan, 2015 UT App 199, ¶ 17 , 357 P.3d 20 (ci | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Delaware v. Van Arsdall
green
2 sentences2023Whether an error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt depends on a host of factors, including “the importance of the witness’[s] testimony in the prosecution’s case, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimony of the witness on material points, the extent of cross-examination otherwise permitted, and, of course, the overall strength of the prosecution’s case.” Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. at 684 ; see also State v. Drommond, 2020 UT 50, ¶ 105 , 469 P.3d 1056 . ¶41 Here, Emily was, of course, the key prosecution witness to the 2016Whether an error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in a particular case depends on a host of factors, including “the importance of the witness’!#] testimony in the prosecution’s case, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimony of the witness on material points, the extent of cross-examination otherwise permitted, and, of course, the overall strength of the prosecution’s case.” Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 684 , 106 S.Ct. 1431 , 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986); see also Lujan, 2015 UT App 199, ¶ 17 , 357 P.3d 20 (ci | 6 | 1993–2023 |
Wood v. UPS
green
2 sentences2024But as explained by our supreme court, foreseeability “turns on a host of factors including who the person is, what they observe, their ability to remedy the condition, and the time they have to respond before the injury occurs.” Wood, 2021 UT 49, ¶ 42 . 2024As a result, a foreseeability “inquiry is highly fact dependent.” Id. ¶43 Even so, there are cases in which summary judgment may be appropriate on questions of causation generally or superseding cause more particularly. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Woodward v. LaFranca
green
1 sentence2023These factors include “the nature of the burden on the servient estate” and “the physical dimensions of the prescriptive use.” Id. ¶34 Again, under the law of the case doctrine, a “remand with specific instructions to the trial court necessarily precludes the trial court from considering issues outside the scope of remand.” Woodward, 2016 UT App 141, ¶ 8 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Vigil
green
1 sentence2023“In this sense, her testimony was of ultimate importance.” See Vigil, 2013 UT App 167, ¶ 14 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Bowden
green
1 sentence2019In determining whether an error was prejudicial, we consider a host of factors, including 20170318-CA 11 2019 UT App 167 State v. Bowden whether the evidence was cumulative, whether there was corroborating or contradictory evidence, and “the overall strength of the prosecution’s case.” State v. Hackford, 737 P.2d 200, 205 (Utah 1987) (quotation simplified). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Matsamas
green
1 sentence2013"An error is harmful if there is a reasonable likelihood that the error affected the outcome in the trial court." Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 152 Whether an error is barmful in a particular case "depends upon a host of factors, all readily accessible to reviewing courts." Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 684 , 106 S.Ct. 1431 , 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
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.