harmless error in Utah

2012Harmless error is "an error that is sufficiently inconsequential that we conclude there is no reasonable likelihood that the error affected the outcome of the proceedings." Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

1996Exch., 817 P.2d 789, 796 (Utah 1991) (“ ‘Harmless error’ is defined ... as an error that is ‘sufficiently inconsequential that we conclude there is no reasonable likelihood that the error affected the outcome of the proceedings.’ ” (quoting State v. Verde, 770 P.2d 116, 120 (Utah 1989))).

2015"Harmless error is an error that is sufficient, ly inconsequential that there is no reasonable likelihood that it affected the outcome of the proceedings." In re A.M., 2009 UT App 118, ¶ 21 , 208 P.3d 1058 ; see also In re J.C., 808 P.2d 1131, 1136 (Utah Ct.App.1991)(concluding that harmless error doctrine applied to - appellant's claim that juvenile court improperly admitted hearsay evidence when other non-hearsay evidence supported the juvenile court's conclusions).

2015“Harmless error is an error that is sufficiently inconsequential that there is no reasonable likelihood that it affected the outcome of the proceedings.” In re A.M., 2009 UT App 118, ¶ 21 , 208 P.3d 1058 ; see also In re J.C., 808 P.2d 1131, 1136 (Utah Ct. App. 1991)(concluding that harmless error doctrine applied to appellant’s claim that juvenile court improperly admitted hearsay evidence when other non-hearsay evidence supported the juvenile court’s conclusions).

1991The harmless error analysis proceeds under Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 61 3 and State v. Verde, 770 P.2d 116 (Utah 1989). 4 “Harmless error” is defined in Verde as an error that is “sufficiently inconsequential that we conclude there is no reasonable likelihood that the error affected the outcome of the proceedings.” Verde, 770 P.2d at 120 ; accord, e.g., State v. Knight, 734 P.2d 913, 919-20 (Utah 1987) (explaining meaning of “reasonable” probability or likelihood).

1991The harmless error analysis proceeds under Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 61 3 and State v. Verde, 770 P.2d 116 (Utah 1989). 4 “Harmless error” is defined in Verde as an error that is “sufficiently inconsequential that we conclude there is no reasonable likelihood that the error affected the outcome of the proceedings.” Verde, 770 P.2d at 120 ; accord, e.g., State v. Knight, 734 P.2d 913, 919-20 (Utah 1987) (explaining meaning of “reasonable” probability or likelihood).

2025See In re M.W., 2016 UT App 217, ¶ 12 , 387 P.3d 557 . ¶39 “Harmless error is an error that is sufficiently inconsequential that there is no reasonable likelihood that it affected the outcome of the proceedings.” H.U.F. v. W.P.W., 2009 UT 10, ¶ 44 , 203 P.3d 943 (quotation simplified).

2017Harmless error “is an error that is sufficiently inconsequential that there is no reasonable likelihood that it affected the outcome of the proceedings.” H.U.F. v. W.P.W., 2009 UT 10, ¶ 44 , 203 P.3d 943 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). ¶ 13 We see no reasonable likelihood that these three hearsay statements affected the outcome of the proceedings.

2025See In re M.W., 2016 UT App 217, ¶ 12 , 387 P.3d 557 . ¶39 “Harmless error is an error that is sufficiently inconsequential that there is no reasonable likelihood that it affected the outcome of the proceedings.” H.U.F. v. W.P.W., 2009 UT 10, ¶ 44 , 203 P.3d 943 (quotation simplified).

2017Harmless error “is an error that is sufficiently inconsequential that there is no reasonable likelihood that it affected the outcome of the proceedings.” H.U.F. v. W.P.W., 2009 UT 10, ¶ 44 , 203 P.3d 943 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). ¶ 13 We see no reasonable likelihood that these three hearsay statements affected the outcome of the proceedings.

2016"Harmless error is defined ... as an error that is sufficiently inconsequential that we conclude there is no reasonable likelihood that the error affected the outcome of the proceedings." Covey v. Covey, 2003 UT App 380, ¶ 21 , 80 P.8d 558 (omission in original) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

2015A harmless error is "'an error that is sufficiently inconsequential that we conclude there is no reasonable likelihood that the error affected the outcome of the proceedings" Covey v. Covey, 2003 UT App 380, ¶ 21 , 80 P.3d 553 (quoting Crookston v. Fire Ins.

1996The doctrine of harmless error applies to “ ‘errors which, although properly preserved below and presented on appeal, are sufficiently inconsequential that we conclude there is no reasonable likelihood that the error affected the outcome of the proceedings.’” State v. Villarreal, 857 P.2d 949, 957-58 (Utah App.1993) (quoting State v. Verde, 770 P.2d 116, 120 (Utah 1989)), aff'd, 889 P.2d 419 (Utah 1995).

1996The doctrine of harmless error applies to “ ‘errors which, although properly preserved below and presented on appeal, are sufficiently inconsequential that we conclude there is no reasonable likelihood that the error affected the outcome of the proceedings.’” State v. Villarreal, 857 P.2d 949, 957-58 (Utah App.1993) (quoting State v. Verde, 770 P.2d 116, 120 (Utah 1989)), aff'd, 889 P.2d 419 (Utah 1995).

2023Id. ¶¶ 30–31. ¶27 This harmless error analysis is expressly incorporated into the first two Manning scenarios because in those scenarios—i.e., where “the defendant asked his or her attorney to file an appeal but the attorney, after agreeing to file, failed to do so” and where “the defendant diligently but futilely attempted to appeal within the statutory time frame without fault on [the] defendant’s part”—“the defendant takes affirmative steps to appeal and is ultimately harmed because something outside of his control causes the failure to appeal.” Id. ¶ 32 (cleaned up).

2016See State v. Collins, 2014 UT 61, ¶ 44 , 342 P.3d 789 (“A harmless error is one ‘that is sufficiently inconsequential that there is no reasonable likelihood that it affected the outcome of the proceedings.’” (citation omitted)).

2015See Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 9 , 119 S.Ct. 1827 , 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999) (recognizing that in Johnson, "[the defendant failed to object at trial, and we thus reviewed her claim for 'plain error'"). 144 Similarly, in Kimmelman v. Morrison, the Supreme Court explained that if a defendant fails to preserve a Fourth Amendment objection at trial, "he also loses the opportunity to obtain direct review under the harmless-error standard of Chapman v. California." 477 U.S. 365 , 382 n. 7, 106 S.Ct. 2574 , 91 L.Ed.2d 305 (1986).

2015See Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 9 , 119 S.Ct. 1827 , 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999) (recognizing that in Johnson, "[the defendant failed to object at trial, and we thus reviewed her claim for 'plain error'"). 144 Similarly, in Kimmelman v. Morrison, the Supreme Court explained that if a defendant fails to preserve a Fourth Amendment objection at trial, "he also loses the opportunity to obtain direct review under the harmless-error standard of Chapman v. California." 477 U.S. 365 , 382 n. 7, 106 S.Ct. 2574 , 91 L.Ed.2d 305 (1986).

2013See, e.g., State v. Frame, 723 P.2d 401, 406 (Utah 1986) (holding defendant could not show that counsel's failure to call certain witnesses was prefudicial when defendant did "not identify what other persons should have been called as witnesses or how their testimony was essential to his defense"); Black v. Hennig, 2012 UT App 259, ¶ 16 , 286 P.3d 1256 (holding "no appellate relief is available" to a party who fails to proffer the contents of improperly excluded evidence, and that such failure to proffer "prevents [the court] from undertaking a meaningful harmless error analysis").

2013See, e.g., State v. Frame, 723 P.2d 401, 406 (Utah 1986) (holding defendant could not show that counsel’s failure to call certain witnesses was prejudicial when defendant did “not identify what other persons should have been called as witnesses or how their testimony was essential to his defense”); Black v. Hennig, 2012 UT App 259, ¶ 16 , 286 P.3d 1256 (holding “no appellate relief is available” to a party who fails to proffer the contents of improperly excluded evidence, and that such failure to proffer “prevents [the court] from undertaking a (continued...) 20120227‐CA 7 2013 UT App 162 In r

2011T 48 In support of the district court's holding, the State also points to our application of harmless error to a rule 11 violation in State v. Kay, TIT P2d 1294, 1801 (Utah 1986), overruled on other grounds by State v. Hoff, 814 P.2d 1119, 1128 (Utah 1991), and emphasizes that harmless error review of rule 11 violations has never been expressly disallowed following the advent of the Gibbons strict compliance test. 4 49 In addition to urging us to affirm the district court's reasoning, the State offers two additional reasons why harmless error should apply to rule 11 violations.

2003See State v. Kay, 717 P.2d 1294, 1301 (Utah 1986) (holding the harmless error doctrine applies to rule 11 violations because otherwise "we would encourage defendants ... to attack their convictions for purely tactical reasons, either by direct appeal or by seeking habeas corpus long after the fact), overruled in part on other grounds by State v. Hoff, 814 P.2d 1119, 1123 (Utah 1991).

1988As discussed in State v. Bishop, 753 P.2d 439, 499-500 (Utah 1988) (Zimmerman, J., concurring, joined by Stewart, A.C.J., and Durham, J.), the standard of harmless error applicable to violations of the federal constitution differs from the standard applicable under our state rules of evidence and procedure.

1988As discussed in State v. Bishop, 753 P.2d 439, 499-500 (Utah 1988) (Zimmerman, J., concurring, joined by Stewart, A.C.J., and Durham, J.), the standard of harmless error applicable to violations of the federal constitution differs from the standard applicable under our state rules of evidence and procedure.

2024Cf. In re L.B., 2015 UT App 21 , ¶ 6, 343 P.3d 332 (per curiam) (“Harmless error is an error that is sufficiently inconsequential that there is no reasonable likelihood that it affected the outcome of the proceedings.” (cleaned up)); accord In re A.M., 2009 UT App 118, ¶ 21 , 208 P.3d 1058 . 20220798-CA 18 2024 UT App 91 In re R.D. ¶46 First, Mother makes no showing that Grandparents failed to demonstrate that it was in the Children’s best interest to award them permanent custody and guardianship.

2024Cf. In re L.B., 2015 UT App 21 , ¶ 6, 343 P.3d 332 (per curiam) (“Harmless error is an error that is sufficiently inconsequential that there is no reasonable likelihood that it affected the outcome of the proceedings.” (cleaned up)); accord In re A.M., 2009 UT App 118, ¶ 21 , 208 P.3d 1058 . 20220798-CA 18 2024 UT App 91 In re R.D. ¶46 First, Mother makes no showing that Grandparents failed to demonstrate that it was in the Children’s best interest to award them permanent custody and guardianship.

2021Under that higher standard, “reversal is required unless the error is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt,” State v. Drommond, 2020 UT 50, ¶ 105 , 469 P.3d 1056 (quotation simplified), and—at least for preserved claims of constitutional error—“the burden to demonstrate harm [or lack thereof] . . . shifts from the defendant to the State when a constitutional error is alleged,” see State v. Bond, 2015 UT 88, ¶ 37 , 361 P.3d 104 ; see also Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 (1967) (stating that “constitutional error . . . casts on someone other than the person prejudiced by it a burden to show

2019The harmless error doctrine requires the prosecution to show "beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained." Chapman , 386 U.S. at 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824 .

2021In defining “harmless error,” rule 61 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[t]he court . . . must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.” See also State v. Hamilton, 827 P.2d 232, 240 (Utah 1992) (defining a harmless error as an error that is “sufficiently inconsequential that we conclude there is no reasonable likelihood that the error affected the outcome of the proceedings” (citation __________________________________________________________ 4 Steffensen provides no legal support for his argument that this

1998Put differently, an error is harmful only if the likelihood of a different outcome is sufficiently high that it undermines our confidence in the verdict.” Id.

1996For an error to require reversal, “the likelihood of a different outcome must be sufficiently high to undermine confidence in the verdict.” State v. Knight, 734 P.2d 913, 920 (Utah 1987). *903 In determining whether reversal is required, several factors are considered, including “‘the importance of the witnesses] testimony in the prosecution’s case, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence eo[rro]borating or contradicting the testimony of the witness on material points, the extent of cross-examination otherwise permitted, and, of course, the overall strength of

1996For an error to require reversal, “the likelihood of a different outcome must be sufficiently high to undermine confidence in the verdict.” State v. Knight, 734 P.2d 913, 920 (Utah 1987). *903 In determining whether reversal is required, several factors are considered, including “‘the importance of the witnesses] testimony in the prosecution’s case, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence eo[rro]borating or contradicting the testimony of the witness on material points, the extent of cross-examination otherwise permitted, and, of course, the overall strength of

2025See State v. McNeil, 2016 UT 3, ¶ 29 , 365 P.3d 699 (“[T]he prejudice test is the same whether under the claim of ineffective assistance or plain error.”); State v. Leech, 2020 UT App 116 , ¶ 43 n.7, 473 P.3d 218 (“[T]he showing of prejudice required to establish that preserved errors are harmful is indistinguishable from the showing of prejudice required to establish plain error or ineffective assistance of counsel for unpreserved errors.”), cert. denied, 481 P.3d 1039 (Utah 2021); State v. Ray, 2022 UT App 95 , ¶ 50 n.17, 516 P.3d 329 (explaining that the plain error standard for prejudice “

2025See State v. McNeil, 2016 UT 3, ¶ 29 , 365 P.3d 699 (“[T]he prejudice test is the same whether under the claim of ineffective assistance or plain error.”); State v. Leech, 2020 UT App 116 , ¶ 43 n.7, 473 P.3d 218 (“[T]he showing of prejudice required to establish that preserved errors are harmful is indistinguishable from the showing of prejudice required to establish plain error or ineffective assistance of counsel for unpreserved errors.”), cert. denied, 481 P.3d 1039 (Utah 2021); State v. Ray, 2022 UT App 95 , ¶ 50 n.17, 516 P.3d 329 (explaining that the plain error standard for prejudice “

2025See State v. Ray, 2022 UT App 95 , ¶ 50 n.17, 516 P.3d 329 (explaining that the plain error standard for harm “mirrors” that of the harmless error doctrine).

2025See State v. Ray, 2022 UT App 95 , ¶ 50 n.17, 516 P.3d 329 (explaining that the plain error standard for harm “mirrors” that of the harmless error doctrine).

2023State v. Marks, 2011 UT App 262, ¶ 45 , 262 P.3d 13 , superseded on other grounds by statute as stated in State v. Steffen, 2020 UT App 95 , 468 P.3d 568 . 20180597-CA 25 2023 UT App 19 State v. Eddington 18, 24 (1967) (holding that a constitutional error may be held harmless if the error “was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt”); see also Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. at 681 (“The harmless-error doctrine recognizes the principle that the central purpose of a criminal trial is to decide the factual question of the defendant’s guilt or innocence and promotes public respect for the criminal process by f

2023State v. Marks, 2011 UT App 262, ¶ 45 , 262 P.3d 13 , superseded on other grounds by statute as stated in State v. Steffen, 2020 UT App 95 , 468 P.3d 568 . 20180597-CA 25 2023 UT App 19 State v. Eddington 18, 24 (1967) (holding that a constitutional error may be held harmless if the error “was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt”); see also Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. at 681 (“The harmless-error doctrine recognizes the principle that the central purpose of a criminal trial is to decide the factual question of the defendant’s guilt or innocence and promotes public respect for the criminal process by f

2023State v. Marks, 2011 UT App 262, ¶ 45 , 262 P.3d 13 , superseded on other grounds by statute as stated in State v. Steffen, 2020 UT App 95 , 468 P.3d 568 . 20180597-CA 25 2023 UT App 19 State v. Eddington 18, 24 (1967) (holding that a constitutional error may be held harmless if the error “was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt”); see also Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. at 681 (“The harmless-error doctrine recognizes the principle that the central purpose of a criminal trial is to decide the factual question of the defendant’s guilt or innocence and promotes public respect for the criminal process by f

1996For an error to require reversal, “the likelihood of a different outcome must be sufficiently high to undermine confidence in the verdict.” State v. Knight, 734 P.2d 913, 920 (Utah 1987). *903 In determining whether reversal is required, several factors are considered, including “‘the importance of the witnesses] testimony in the prosecution’s case, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence eo[rro]borating or contradicting the testimony of the witness on material points, the extent of cross-examination otherwise permitted, and, of course, the overall strength of