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.
13 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 2005–2025 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. Robertsongreen2 sentences2005Third, “it is inappropriate to instruct that a reasonable doubt is not merely a possibility,” although it is permissible to instruct that a “fanciful or wholly speculative possibility ought not to defeat proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” Robertson, 932 P.2d at 1232 (citations omitted). ¶ 8 The court of appeals hewed tightly to the Robertson test in assessing Mr. Reyes’s challenge. 2005Third, “it is inappropriate to instruct that a reasonable doubt is not merely a possibility,” although it is permissible to instruct that a “fanciful or wholly speculative possibility ought not to defeat proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” Robertson, 932 P.2d at 1232 (citations omitted). ¶ 8 The court of appeals hewed tightly to the Robertson test in assessing Mr. Reyes’s challenge. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Cruzgreen2 sentences2006However, we consider the “eliminate all reasonable doubt” jury instruction to be less troublesome than the Reyes “obviate all reasonable doubt” instruction. ¶ 16 In State v. Cruz, 2005 UT 45 , 122 P.3d 543 , the Utah Supreme Court determined that Reyes effectively overruled the Robertson test for reasonable doubt jury instructions and adopted the test enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. 1, 22 , 114 S.Ct. 1239 , 127 L.Ed.2d 583 (1994). 2006However, we consider the “eliminate all reasonable doubt” jury instruction to be less troublesome than the Reyes “obviate all reasonable doubt” instruction. ¶ 16 In State v. Cruz, 2005 UT 45 , 122 P.3d 543 , the Utah Supreme Court determined that Reyes effectively overruled the Robertson test for reasonable doubt jury instructions and adopted the test enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. 1, 22 , 114 S.Ct. 1239 , 127 L.Ed.2d 583 (1994). | 1 | 2 |
Dalton v. Jerico Construction Co.green1 sentence2017Co., 642 P.2d 748, 750 (Utah 1982). ¶31 With these limiting principles in mind, we can dispose of Robertson’s claim of error in short order. | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Babbittgreen2 sentences2016See Brown, 2015 UT App 161, ¶5 , 353 P.3d 1262 . 2016See Brown, 2015 UT App 161, ¶5 , 353 P.3d 1262 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Franklingreen1 sentence2014See generally State v. Franklin, 735 P.2d 34, 36-38 (Utah 1987). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Kearnsgreen2 sentences2007LEXIS 31934, at *8 (6th Cir. Dec. 6, 1998) (per curiam); United States v. Guerrero, 847 F.2d 1363, 1367 (9th Cir.1988); United States v. O'Brien, 618 F.2d 1234, 1240-41 (7th Cir.1980); United States v. Kearns, 109 F.Supp.2d 1309, 1815 (D.Kan. 2000) (citing case that adopts Robertson test); United States v. Bridges, 46 F.Supp.2d 462, 465-66 (E.D.Va.1999); United States v. Fronk, 173 F.RD. 59, 67 (W.D.N.Y.1997) United States v. Melina, 868 F.Supp. 1178, 1181 (D.Minn.1994); United States v. Swidan, 689 F.Supp. 726, 728 (E.D.Mich.1988); United States v. Washington, 614 F.Supp. 144, 148-49 (E.D.Pa. 2007LEXIS 31934, at *8 (6th Cir. Dec. 6, 1998) (per curiam); United States v. Guerrero, 847 F.2d 1363, 1367 (9th Cir.1988); United States v. O'Brien, 618 F.2d 1234, 1240-41 (7th Cir.1980); United States v. Kearns, 109 F.Supp.2d 1309, 1815 (D.Kan. 2000) (citing case that adopts Robertson test); United States v. Bridges, 46 F.Supp.2d 462, 465-66 (E.D.Va.1999); United States v. Fronk, 173 F.RD. 59, 67 (W.D.N.Y.1997) United States v. Melina, 868 F.Supp. 1178, 1181 (D.Minn.1994); United States v. Swidan, 689 F.Supp. 726, 728 (E.D.Mich.1988); United States v. Washington, 614 F.Supp. 144, 148-49 (E.D.Pa. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hovindgreen2 sentences2007See, eg., Owen v. Crosby, 854 So.2d 182, 189 (Fla.2003); Illinois v. Hart, 214 Ill.2d 490 , 298 IIl.Dec. 290, 828 N.E.2d 260, 267 (2005); Iowa v. Hovind, 431 N.W.2d 366, 369 (Iowa 1988); Maine v. Lavoie, 551 A.2d 106, 108 (Me.1988); Evans v. Mississippi, 725 So.2d 613, 640 (Miss.1997); McKenna v. Nevada, 101 Nev. 338 , 705 P.2d 614, 618 (1985); North Dakota v. Genre, 712 N.W.2d 624, 634 (N.D.2006); Rhode Island v. Traficante, 636 A.2d 692, 696 (R.I.1994). 123 Following the lead of our federal and state counterparts, we also now adopt the Robertson test. 2007See, eg., Owen v. Crosby, 854 So.2d 182, 189 (Fla.2003); Illinois v. Hart, 214 Ill.2d 490 , 298 IIl.Dec. 290, 828 N.E.2d 260, 267 (2005); Iowa v. Hovind, 431 N.W.2d 366, 369 (Iowa 1988); Maine v. Lavoie, 551 A.2d 106, 108 (Me.1988); Evans v. Mississippi, 725 So.2d 613, 640 (Miss.1997); McKenna v. Nevada, 101 Nev. 338 , 705 P.2d 614, 618 (1985); North Dakota v. Genre, 712 N.W.2d 624, 634 (N.D.2006); Rhode Island v. Traficante, 636 A.2d 692, 696 (R.I.1994). 123 Following the lead of our federal and state counterparts, we also now adopt the Robertson test. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Genregreen2 sentences2007See, eg., Owen v. Crosby, 854 So.2d 182, 189 (Fla.2003); Illinois v. Hart, 214 Ill.2d 490 , 298 IIl.Dec. 290, 828 N.E.2d 260, 267 (2005); Iowa v. Hovind, 431 N.W.2d 366, 369 (Iowa 1988); Maine v. Lavoie, 551 A.2d 106, 108 (Me.1988); Evans v. Mississippi, 725 So.2d 613, 640 (Miss.1997); McKenna v. Nevada, 101 Nev. 338 , 705 P.2d 614, 618 (1985); North Dakota v. Genre, 712 N.W.2d 624, 634 (N.D.2006); Rhode Island v. Traficante, 636 A.2d 692, 696 (R.I.1994). 123 Following the lead of our federal and state counterparts, we also now adopt the Robertson test. 2007See, eg., Owen v. Crosby, 854 So.2d 182, 189 (Fla.2003); Illinois v. Hart, 214 Ill.2d 490 , 298 IIl.Dec. 290, 828 N.E.2d 260, 267 (2005); Iowa v. Hovind, 431 N.W.2d 366, 369 (Iowa 1988); Maine v. Lavoie, 551 A.2d 106, 108 (Me.1988); Evans v. Mississippi, 725 So.2d 613, 640 (Miss.1997); McKenna v. Nevada, 101 Nev. 338 , 705 P.2d 614, 618 (1985); North Dakota v. Genre, 712 N.W.2d 624, 634 (N.D.2006); Rhode Island v. Traficante, 636 A.2d 692, 696 (R.I.1994). 123 Following the lead of our federal and state counterparts, we also now adopt the Robertson test. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Morgan O'brien, Donald Sheehy, and David Mizaurgreen2 sentences2007LEXIS 31934, at *8 (6th Cir. Dec. 6, 1998) (per curiam); United States v. Guerrero, 847 F.2d 1363, 1367 (9th Cir.1988); United States v. O'Brien, 618 F.2d 1234, 1240-41 (7th Cir.1980); United States v. Kearns, 109 F.Supp.2d 1309, 1815 (D.Kan. 2000) (citing case that adopts Robertson test); United States v. Bridges, 46 F.Supp.2d 462, 465-66 (E.D.Va.1999); United States v. Fronk, 173 F.RD. 59, 67 (W.D.N.Y.1997) United States v. Melina, 868 F.Supp. 1178, 1181 (D.Minn.1994); United States v. Swidan, 689 F.Supp. 726, 728 (E.D.Mich.1988); United States v. Washington, 614 F.Supp. 144, 148-49 (E.D.Pa. 2007LEXIS 31934, at *8 (6th Cir. Dec. 6, 1998) (per curiam); United States v. Guerrero, 847 F.2d 1363, 1367 (9th Cir.1988); United States v. O'Brien, 618 F.2d 1234, 1240-41 (7th Cir.1980); United States v. Kearns, 109 F.Supp.2d 1309, 1815 (D.Kan. 2000) (citing case that adopts Robertson test); United States v. Bridges, 46 F.Supp.2d 462, 465-66 (E.D.Va.1999); United States v. Fronk, 173 F.RD. 59, 67 (W.D.N.Y.1997) United States v. Melina, 868 F.Supp. 1178, 1181 (D.Minn.1994); United States v. Swidan, 689 F.Supp. 726, 728 (E.D.Mich.1988); United States v. Washington, 614 F.Supp. 144, 148-49 (E.D.Pa. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2007LEXIS 31934, at *8 (6th Cir. Dec. 6, 1998) (per curiam); United States v. Guerrero, 847 F.2d 1363, 1367 (9th Cir.1988); United States v. O'Brien, 618 F.2d 1234, 1240-41 (7th Cir.1980); United States v. Kearns, 109 F.Supp.2d 1309, 1815 (D.Kan. 2000) (citing case that adopts Robertson test); United States v. Bridges, 46 F.Supp.2d 462, 465-66 (E.D.Va.1999); United States v. Fronk, 173 F.RD. 59, 67 (W.D.N.Y.1997) United States v. Melina, 868 F.Supp. 1178, 1181 (D.Minn.1994); United States v. Swidan, 689 F.Supp. 726, 728 (E.D.Mich.1988); United States v. Washington, 614 F.Supp. 144, 148-49 (E.D.Pa. 2007LEXIS 31934, at *8 (6th Cir. Dec. 6, 1998) (per curiam); United States v. Guerrero, 847 F.2d 1363, 1367 (9th Cir.1988); United States v. O'Brien, 618 F.2d 1234, 1240-41 (7th Cir.1980); United States v. Kearns, 109 F.Supp.2d 1309, 1815 (D.Kan. 2000) (citing case that adopts Robertson test); United States v. Bridges, 46 F.Supp.2d 462, 465-66 (E.D.Va.1999); United States v. Fronk, 173 F.RD. 59, 67 (W.D.N.Y.1997) United States v. Melina, 868 F.Supp. 1178, 1181 (D.Minn.1994); United States v. Swidan, 689 F.Supp. 726, 728 (E.D.Mich.1988); United States v. Washington, 614 F.Supp. 144, 148-49 (E.D.Pa. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Danny Leon Guerrerogreen2 sentences2007LEXIS 31934, at *8 (6th Cir. Dec. 6, 1998) (per curiam); United States v. Guerrero, 847 F.2d 1363, 1367 (9th Cir.1988); United States v. O'Brien, 618 F.2d 1234, 1240-41 (7th Cir.1980); United States v. Kearns, 109 F.Supp.2d 1309, 1815 (D.Kan. 2000) (citing case that adopts Robertson test); United States v. Bridges, 46 F.Supp.2d 462, 465-66 (E.D.Va.1999); United States v. Fronk, 173 F.RD. 59, 67 (W.D.N.Y.1997) United States v. Melina, 868 F.Supp. 1178, 1181 (D.Minn.1994); United States v. Swidan, 689 F.Supp. 726, 728 (E.D.Mich.1988); United States v. Washington, 614 F.Supp. 144, 148-49 (E.D.Pa. 2007LEXIS 31934, at *8 (6th Cir. Dec. 6, 1998) (per curiam); United States v. Guerrero, 847 F.2d 1363, 1367 (9th Cir.1988); United States v. O'Brien, 618 F.2d 1234, 1240-41 (7th Cir.1980); United States v. Kearns, 109 F.Supp.2d 1309, 1815 (D.Kan. 2000) (citing case that adopts Robertson test); United States v. Bridges, 46 F.Supp.2d 462, 465-66 (E.D.Va.1999); United States v. Fronk, 173 F.RD. 59, 67 (W.D.N.Y.1997) United States v. Melina, 868 F.Supp. 1178, 1181 (D.Minn.1994); United States v. Swidan, 689 F.Supp. 726, 728 (E.D.Mich.1988); United States v. Washington, 614 F.Supp. 144, 148-49 (E.D.Pa. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Melinagreen2 sentences2007LEXIS 31934, at *8 (6th Cir. Dec. 6, 1998) (per curiam); United States v. Guerrero, 847 F.2d 1363, 1367 (9th Cir.1988); United States v. O'Brien, 618 F.2d 1234, 1240-41 (7th Cir.1980); United States v. Kearns, 109 F.Supp.2d 1309, 1815 (D.Kan. 2000) (citing case that adopts Robertson test); United States v. Bridges, 46 F.Supp.2d 462, 465-66 (E.D.Va.1999); United States v. Fronk, 173 F.RD. 59, 67 (W.D.N.Y.1997) United States v. Melina, 868 F.Supp. 1178, 1181 (D.Minn.1994); United States v. Swidan, 689 F.Supp. 726, 728 (E.D.Mich.1988); United States v. Washington, 614 F.Supp. 144, 148-49 (E.D.Pa. 2007LEXIS 31934, at *8 (6th Cir. Dec. 6, 1998) (per curiam); United States v. Guerrero, 847 F.2d 1363, 1367 (9th Cir.1988); United States v. O'Brien, 618 F.2d 1234, 1240-41 (7th Cir.1980); United States v. Kearns, 109 F.Supp.2d 1309, 1815 (D.Kan. 2000) (citing case that adopts Robertson test); United States v. Bridges, 46 F.Supp.2d 462, 465-66 (E.D.Va.1999); United States v. Fronk, 173 F.RD. 59, 67 (W.D.N.Y.1997) United States v. Melina, 868 F.Supp. 1178, 1181 (D.Minn.1994); United States v. Swidan, 689 F.Supp. 726, 728 (E.D.Mich.1988); United States v. Washington, 614 F.Supp. 144, 148-49 (E.D.Pa. | 1 | 1 |
Owen v. Crosbygreen2 sentences2007See, eg., Owen v. Crosby, 854 So.2d 182, 189 (Fla.2003); Illinois v. Hart, 214 Ill.2d 490 , 298 IIl.Dec. 290, 828 N.E.2d 260, 267 (2005); Iowa v. Hovind, 431 N.W.2d 366, 369 (Iowa 1988); Maine v. Lavoie, 551 A.2d 106, 108 (Me.1988); Evans v. Mississippi, 725 So.2d 613, 640 (Miss.1997); McKenna v. Nevada, 101 Nev. 338 , 705 P.2d 614, 618 (1985); North Dakota v. Genre, 712 N.W.2d 624, 634 (N.D.2006); Rhode Island v. Traficante, 636 A.2d 692, 696 (R.I.1994). 123 Following the lead of our federal and state counterparts, we also now adopt the Robertson test. 2007See, eg., Owen v. Crosby, 854 So.2d 182, 189 (Fla.2003); Illinois v. Hart, 214 Ill.2d 490 , 298 IIl.Dec. 290, 828 N.E.2d 260, 267 (2005); Iowa v. Hovind, 431 N.W.2d 366, 369 (Iowa 1988); Maine v. Lavoie, 551 A.2d 106, 108 (Me.1988); Evans v. Mississippi, 725 So.2d 613, 640 (Miss.1997); McKenna v. Nevada, 101 Nev. 338 , 705 P.2d 614, 618 (1985); North Dakota v. Genre, 712 N.W.2d 624, 634 (N.D.2006); Rhode Island v. Traficante, 636 A.2d 692, 696 (R.I.1994). 123 Following the lead of our federal and state counterparts, we also now adopt the Robertson test. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Swidangreen2 sentences2007LEXIS 31934, at *8 (6th Cir. Dec. 6, 1998) (per curiam); United States v. Guerrero, 847 F.2d 1363, 1367 (9th Cir.1988); United States v. O'Brien, 618 F.2d 1234, 1240-41 (7th Cir.1980); United States v. Kearns, 109 F.Supp.2d 1309, 1815 (D.Kan. 2000) (citing case that adopts Robertson test); United States v. Bridges, 46 F.Supp.2d 462, 465-66 (E.D.Va.1999); United States v. Fronk, 173 F.RD. 59, 67 (W.D.N.Y.1997) United States v. Melina, 868 F.Supp. 1178, 1181 (D.Minn.1994); United States v. Swidan, 689 F.Supp. 726, 728 (E.D.Mich.1988); United States v. Washington, 614 F.Supp. 144, 148-49 (E.D.Pa. 2007LEXIS 31934, at *8 (6th Cir. Dec. 6, 1998) (per curiam); United States v. Guerrero, 847 F.2d 1363, 1367 (9th Cir.1988); United States v. O'Brien, 618 F.2d 1234, 1240-41 (7th Cir.1980); United States v. Kearns, 109 F.Supp.2d 1309, 1815 (D.Kan. 2000) (citing case that adopts Robertson test); United States v. Bridges, 46 F.Supp.2d 462, 465-66 (E.D.Va.1999); United States v. Fronk, 173 F.RD. 59, 67 (W.D.N.Y.1997) United States v. Melina, 868 F.Supp. 1178, 1181 (D.Minn.1994); United States v. Swidan, 689 F.Supp. 726, 728 (E.D.Mich.1988); United States v. Washington, 614 F.Supp. 144, 148-49 (E.D.Pa. | 1 | 1 |
Melendez v. Stategreen2 sentences2007See id. at 1866 (stating that the court must determine that defendant exhibited a subjective expectation and that the expectation was objectively reasonable under the totality of the cireumstances); see also Melendez v. Florida, 747 So.2d 1011, 1012 (Fla.Dist.Ct. 2007See id. at 1866 (stating that the court must determine that defendant exhibited a subjective expectation and that the expectation was objectively reasonable under the totality of the cireumstances); see also Melendez v. Florida, 747 So.2d 1011, 1012 (Fla.Dist.Ct. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Andrew Jackson Robertsongreen2 sentences2007See 582 F.2d 1356 (1978); Fed.R.Evid. 410 Advisory Committee Notes (explaining that the amendment was adopted in 1979 but that the amendment's effective date was extended to December 1980). 2007See 582 F.2d 1356 (1978); Fed.R.Evid. 410 Advisory Committee Notes (explaining that the amendment was adopted in 1979 but that the amendment's effective date was extended to December 1980). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Traficantegreen2 sentences2007See, eg., Owen v. Crosby, 854 So.2d 182, 189 (Fla.2003); Illinois v. Hart, 214 Ill.2d 490 , 298 IIl.Dec. 290, 828 N.E.2d 260, 267 (2005); Iowa v. Hovind, 431 N.W.2d 366, 369 (Iowa 1988); Maine v. Lavoie, 551 A.2d 106, 108 (Me.1988); Evans v. Mississippi, 725 So.2d 613, 640 (Miss.1997); McKenna v. Nevada, 101 Nev. 338 , 705 P.2d 614, 618 (1985); North Dakota v. Genre, 712 N.W.2d 624, 634 (N.D.2006); Rhode Island v. Traficante, 636 A.2d 692, 696 (R.I.1994). 123 Following the lead of our federal and state counterparts, we also now adopt the Robertson test. 2007See, eg., Owen v. Crosby, 854 So.2d 182, 189 (Fla.2003); Illinois v. Hart, 214 Ill.2d 490 , 298 IIl.Dec. 290, 828 N.E.2d 260, 267 (2005); Iowa v. Hovind, 431 N.W.2d 366, 369 (Iowa 1988); Maine v. Lavoie, 551 A.2d 106, 108 (Me.1988); Evans v. Mississippi, 725 So.2d 613, 640 (Miss.1997); McKenna v. Nevada, 101 Nev. 338 , 705 P.2d 614, 618 (1985); North Dakota v. Genre, 712 N.W.2d 624, 634 (N.D.2006); Rhode Island v. Traficante, 636 A.2d 692, 696 (R.I.1994). 123 Following the lead of our federal and state counterparts, we also now adopt the Robertson test. | 1 | 1 |
Evans v. Stategreen2 sentences2007See, eg., Owen v. Crosby, 854 So.2d 182, 189 (Fla.2003); Illinois v. Hart, 214 Ill.2d 490 , 298 IIl.Dec. 290, 828 N.E.2d 260, 267 (2005); Iowa v. Hovind, 431 N.W.2d 366, 369 (Iowa 1988); Maine v. Lavoie, 551 A.2d 106, 108 (Me.1988); Evans v. Mississippi, 725 So.2d 613, 640 (Miss.1997); McKenna v. Nevada, 101 Nev. 338 , 705 P.2d 614, 618 (1985); North Dakota v. Genre, 712 N.W.2d 624, 634 (N.D.2006); Rhode Island v. Traficante, 636 A.2d 692, 696 (R.I.1994). 123 Following the lead of our federal and state counterparts, we also now adopt the Robertson test. 2007See, eg., Owen v. Crosby, 854 So.2d 182, 189 (Fla.2003); Illinois v. Hart, 214 Ill.2d 490 , 298 IIl.Dec. 290, 828 N.E.2d 260, 267 (2005); Iowa v. Hovind, 431 N.W.2d 366, 369 (Iowa 1988); Maine v. Lavoie, 551 A.2d 106, 108 (Me.1988); Evans v. Mississippi, 725 So.2d 613, 640 (Miss.1997); McKenna v. Nevada, 101 Nev. 338 , 705 P.2d 614, 618 (1985); North Dakota v. Genre, 712 N.W.2d 624, 634 (N.D.2006); Rhode Island v. Traficante, 636 A.2d 692, 696 (R.I.1994). 123 Following the lead of our federal and state counterparts, we also now adopt the Robertson test. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lavoiegreen2 sentences2007See, eg., Owen v. Crosby, 854 So.2d 182, 189 (Fla.2003); Illinois v. Hart, 214 Ill.2d 490 , 298 IIl.Dec. 290, 828 N.E.2d 260, 267 (2005); Iowa v. Hovind, 431 N.W.2d 366, 369 (Iowa 1988); Maine v. Lavoie, 551 A.2d 106, 108 (Me.1988); Evans v. Mississippi, 725 So.2d 613, 640 (Miss.1997); McKenna v. Nevada, 101 Nev. 338 , 705 P.2d 614, 618 (1985); North Dakota v. Genre, 712 N.W.2d 624, 634 (N.D.2006); Rhode Island v. Traficante, 636 A.2d 692, 696 (R.I.1994). 123 Following the lead of our federal and state counterparts, we also now adopt the Robertson test. 2007See, eg., Owen v. Crosby, 854 So.2d 182, 189 (Fla.2003); Illinois v. Hart, 214 Ill.2d 490 , 298 IIl.Dec. 290, 828 N.E.2d 260, 267 (2005); Iowa v. Hovind, 431 N.W.2d 366, 369 (Iowa 1988); Maine v. Lavoie, 551 A.2d 106, 108 (Me.1988); Evans v. Mississippi, 725 So.2d 613, 640 (Miss.1997); McKenna v. Nevada, 101 Nev. 338 , 705 P.2d 614, 618 (1985); North Dakota v. Genre, 712 N.W.2d 624, 634 (N.D.2006); Rhode Island v. Traficante, 636 A.2d 692, 696 (R.I.1994). 123 Following the lead of our federal and state counterparts, we also now adopt the Robertson test. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Hartgreen2 sentences2007See, eg., Owen v. Crosby, 854 So.2d 182, 189 (Fla.2003); Illinois v. Hart, 214 Ill.2d 490 , 298 IIl.Dec. 290, 828 N.E.2d 260, 267 (2005); Iowa v. Hovind, 431 N.W.2d 366, 369 (Iowa 1988); Maine v. Lavoie, 551 A.2d 106, 108 (Me.1988); Evans v. Mississippi, 725 So.2d 613, 640 (Miss.1997); McKenna v. Nevada, 101 Nev. 338 , 705 P.2d 614, 618 (1985); North Dakota v. Genre, 712 N.W.2d 624, 634 (N.D.2006); Rhode Island v. Traficante, 636 A.2d 692, 696 (R.I.1994). 123 Following the lead of our federal and state counterparts, we also now adopt the Robertson test. 2007See, eg., Owen v. Crosby, 854 So.2d 182, 189 (Fla.2003); Illinois v. Hart, 214 Ill.2d 490 , 298 IIl.Dec. 290, 828 N.E.2d 260, 267 (2005); Iowa v. Hovind, 431 N.W.2d 366, 369 (Iowa 1988); Maine v. Lavoie, 551 A.2d 106, 108 (Me.1988); Evans v. Mississippi, 725 So.2d 613, 640 (Miss.1997); McKenna v. Nevada, 101 Nev. 338 , 705 P.2d 614, 618 (1985); North Dakota v. Genre, 712 N.W.2d 624, 634 (N.D.2006); Rhode Island v. Traficante, 636 A.2d 692, 696 (R.I.1994). 123 Following the lead of our federal and state counterparts, we also now adopt the Robertson test. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Bridgesgreen2 sentences2007LEXIS 31934, at *8 (6th Cir. Dec. 6, 1998) (per curiam); United States v. Guerrero, 847 F.2d 1363, 1367 (9th Cir.1988); United States v. O'Brien, 618 F.2d 1234, 1240-41 (7th Cir.1980); United States v. Kearns, 109 F.Supp.2d 1309, 1815 (D.Kan. 2000) (citing case that adopts Robertson test); United States v. Bridges, 46 F.Supp.2d 462, 465-66 (E.D.Va.1999); United States v. Fronk, 173 F.RD. 59, 67 (W.D.N.Y.1997) United States v. Melina, 868 F.Supp. 1178, 1181 (D.Minn.1994); United States v. Swidan, 689 F.Supp. 726, 728 (E.D.Mich.1988); United States v. Washington, 614 F.Supp. 144, 148-49 (E.D.Pa. 2007LEXIS 31934, at *8 (6th Cir. Dec. 6, 1998) (per curiam); United States v. Guerrero, 847 F.2d 1363, 1367 (9th Cir.1988); United States v. O'Brien, 618 F.2d 1234, 1240-41 (7th Cir.1980); United States v. Kearns, 109 F.Supp.2d 1309, 1815 (D.Kan. 2000) (citing case that adopts Robertson test); United States v. Bridges, 46 F.Supp.2d 462, 465-66 (E.D.Va.1999); United States v. Fronk, 173 F.RD. 59, 67 (W.D.N.Y.1997) United States v. Melina, 868 F.Supp. 1178, 1181 (D.Minn.1994); United States v. Swidan, 689 F.Supp. 726, 728 (E.D.Mich.1988); United States v. Washington, 614 F.Supp. 144, 148-49 (E.D.Pa. | 1 | 1 |
McKenna v. Stategreen2 sentences2007See, eg., Owen v. Crosby, 854 So.2d 182, 189 (Fla.2003); Illinois v. Hart, 214 Ill.2d 490 , 298 IIl.Dec. 290, 828 N.E.2d 260, 267 (2005); Iowa v. Hovind, 431 N.W.2d 366, 369 (Iowa 1988); Maine v. Lavoie, 551 A.2d 106, 108 (Me.1988); Evans v. Mississippi, 725 So.2d 613, 640 (Miss.1997); McKenna v. Nevada, 101 Nev. 338 , 705 P.2d 614, 618 (1985); North Dakota v. Genre, 712 N.W.2d 624, 634 (N.D.2006); Rhode Island v. Traficante, 636 A.2d 692, 696 (R.I.1994). 123 Following the lead of our federal and state counterparts, we also now adopt the Robertson test. 2007See, eg., Owen v. Crosby, 854 So.2d 182, 189 (Fla.2003); Illinois v. Hart, 214 Ill.2d 490 , 298 IIl.Dec. 290, 828 N.E.2d 260, 267 (2005); Iowa v. Hovind, 431 N.W.2d 366, 369 (Iowa 1988); Maine v. Lavoie, 551 A.2d 106, 108 (Me.1988); Evans v. Mississippi, 725 So.2d 613, 640 (Miss.1997); McKenna v. Nevada, 101 Nev. 338 , 705 P.2d 614, 618 (1985); North Dakota v. Genre, 712 N.W.2d 624, 634 (N.D.2006); Rhode Island v. Traficante, 636 A.2d 692, 696 (R.I.1994). 123 Following the lead of our federal and state counterparts, we also now adopt the Robertson test. | 1 | 1 |
Crawford v. Stategreen1 sentence2005Although on the surface, counsel’s failure to further question juror Motte seems problematic, we are guided by the principle that we "presume that [counsel's] decision not to challenge the ... venireperson for cause was appropriate, based on our presumption that trial counsel rendered effective assistance." Crawford v. State, 2 P.3d 1055, 1057 (Wyo.2000). | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Brooksgreen | 1 | 1 |
State v. Weavergreen2 sentences2005See Weaver, 2005 UT 49 at ¶ 7 , 122 P.3d 566 . 2005See Weaver, 2005 UT 49 at ¶ 7 , 122 P.3d 566 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Victor v. Nebraska
green
2 sentences2006However, we consider the “eliminate all reasonable doubt” jury instruction to be less troublesome than the Reyes “obviate all reasonable doubt” instruction. ¶ 16 In State v. Cruz, 2005 UT 45 , 122 P.3d 543 , the Utah Supreme Court determined that Reyes effectively overruled the Robertson test for reasonable doubt jury instructions and adopted the test enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. 1, 22 , 114 S.Ct. 1239 , 127 L.Ed.2d 583 (1994). 2006However, we consider the “eliminate all reasonable doubt” jury instruction to be less troublesome than the Reyes “obviate all reasonable doubt” instruction. ¶ 16 In State v. Cruz, 2005 UT 45 , 122 P.3d 543 , the Utah Supreme Court determined that Reyes effectively overruled the Robertson test for reasonable doubt jury instructions and adopted the test enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. 1, 22 , 114 S.Ct. 1239 , 127 L.Ed.2d 583 (1994). | 6 | 2005–2007 |
State v. Reyes
green
2 sentences2005The court expressly abandoned the "'obviate all reasonable doubt' element of the Robertson test" because the element "carries with it the substantial risk of causing a juror to find guilt based on a degree of proof below beyond a reasonable doubt." Id. at 130 . 2005The court expressly abandoned the "'obviate all reasonable doubt' element of the Robertson test" because the element "carries with it the substantial risk of causing a juror to find guilt based on a degree of proof below beyond a reasonable doubt." Id. at 130 . | 4 | 2005–2007 |
Cedar City v. Braget
green
1 sentence2025“Given the dearth of relevant authority,” we concluded, “it would not have been obvious to the trial court that anything more was required of it.” Id. ¶26 Braget is in the same boat as the Robertson defendant. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Glacier Land Co. v. Claudia Klawe & Associates, L.L.C.
green
1 sentence2017Id. ■ANALYSIS ¶18 We begin by reviewing the district court’s order denying Robertson’s motion for summary judgment and granting Far West’s cross-motion .for summary judgment on each of Robertson’s counterclaims. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
United States v. Moore
green
2 sentences2007LEXIS 31934, at *8 (6th Cir. Dec. 6, 1998) (per curiam); United States v. Guerrero, 847 F.2d 1363, 1367 (9th Cir.1988); United States v. O'Brien, 618 F.2d 1234, 1240-41 (7th Cir.1980); United States v. Kearns, 109 F.Supp.2d 1309, 1815 (D.Kan. 2000) (citing case that adopts Robertson test); United States v. Bridges, 46 F.Supp.2d 462, 465-66 (E.D.Va.1999); United States v. Fronk, 173 F.RD. 59, 67 (W.D.N.Y.1997) United States v. Melina, 868 F.Supp. 1178, 1181 (D.Minn.1994); United States v. Swidan, 689 F.Supp. 726, 728 (E.D.Mich.1988); United States v. Washington, 614 F.Supp. 144, 148-49 (E.D.Pa. 2007LEXIS 31934, at *8 (6th Cir. Dec. 6, 1998) (per curiam); United States v. Guerrero, 847 F.2d 1363, 1367 (9th Cir.1988); United States v. O'Brien, 618 F.2d 1234, 1240-41 (7th Cir.1980); United States v. Kearns, 109 F.Supp.2d 1309, 1815 (D.Kan. 2000) (citing case that adopts Robertson test); United States v. Bridges, 46 F.Supp.2d 462, 465-66 (E.D.Va.1999); United States v. Fronk, 173 F.RD. 59, 67 (W.D.N.Y.1997) United States v. Melina, 868 F.Supp. 1178, 1181 (D.Minn.1994); United States v. Swidan, 689 F.Supp. 726, 728 (E.D.Mich.1988); United States v. Washington, 614 F.Supp. 144, 148-49 (E.D.Pa. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Cage v. Louisiana green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| In Re WINSHIP green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| State v. S.H. green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| State v. Reyes green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Weeks
green
2 sentences2005Citing no ease law and providing no discussion, Weaver argues that the three errors raised in this appeal “constituted structural error which requires no showing of harm.” As in Cruz , we need not determine whether Weaver’s “failure to object to the reasonable doubt instructions forecloses his claim of structural error because we conclude that the trial court’s reasonable doubt instructions were not erroneous — the first prong in structural error and plain error analyses.” Id. at ¶ 18. ¶ 7 In Reyes , argued the same day as this appeal, we overruled the Robertson test mandating that a reasonabl 2005Citing no ease law and providing no discussion, Weaver argues that the three errors raised in this appeal “constituted structural error which requires no showing of harm.” As in Cruz , we need not determine whether Weaver’s “failure to object to the reasonable doubt instructions forecloses his claim of structural error because we conclude that the trial court’s reasonable doubt instructions were not erroneous — the first prong in structural error and plain error analyses.” Id. at ¶ 18. ¶ 7 In Reyes , argued the same day as this appeal, we overruled the Robertson test mandating that a reasonabl | 1 | 2005–2005 |
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.