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 1989–2019 0 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. Thomasgreen2 sentences2014"The McDonough test mandates a new trial if the moving party demonstrates that (1) 'a juror failed to answer honestly a material question on voir dire, and (2) 'a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause'" Thomas, 830 P.2d at 245 (quoting McDonough, 464 U.S. at 556 , 104 S.Ct. 845 ). 2012The McDonough test, which was adopted by the Utah Supreme Court in State v. Thomas, 830 P.2d 243 (Utah 1992), "mandates a new trial *185 if the moving party demonstrates that (1) 'a juror failed to answer honestly a material question on voir dire/ and (2) 'a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause."" Id. at 245 (quoting McDonough, 464 U.S. at 556 , 104 S.Ct. 845 ). "[A] post-trial challenge to a juror who did not answer truthfully in voir dire must result in a new trial if truthful answers would have provided a valid basis for dismissing the Juror for cause | 3 | 4 |
State v. Thomasgreen2 sentences1992State v. Thomas, 777 P.2d 445, 451 (Utah 1989). 1992State v. Thomas, 777 P.2d 445, 451 (Utah 1989). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Shippgreen2 sentences2012"Both [prongs of the McDonough test] are necessary to sue-cessfully challenge the participation of the juror in question." State v. Shipp, 2005 UT 35, ¶ 19 , 116 P.3d 317 . {18 Millett argues that because Juror Smith likely recognized Millett's name from the sex offender registry but did not disclose this information during voir dire, he failed to answer honestly material questions on voir dire. 2012"Both [prongs of the McDonough test] are necessary to sue-cessfully challenge the participation of the juror in question." State v. Shipp, 2005 UT 35, ¶ 19 , 116 P.3d 317 . {18 Millett argues that because Juror Smith likely recognized Millett's name from the sex offender registry but did not disclose this information during voir dire, he failed to answer honestly material questions on voir dire. | 1 | 2 |
West v. Holleygreen2 sentences2012See Chen v. Stewart, 2004 UT 82, ¶ 19 , 100 P.3d 1177 ("[ Whether the trial court applied the proper legal standard is a question of law that is reviewed for correctness."). 116 The prong ough test-whether an honest answer to the questions asked on voir dire would have supported a valid basis for a challenge for cause-"incorporates a deferential standard of review" because "trial courts [are accorded] considerable discretion in deciding whether to dismiss potential jurors for cause." West v. Holley, 2004 UT 97, ¶¶ 11-12 , 103 P.3d 708 ("[In reviewing post-trial challenges to a juror, we apply 2012See Chen v. Stewart, 2004 UT 82, ¶ 19 , 100 P.3d 1177 ("[ Whether the trial court applied the proper legal standard is a question of law that is reviewed for correctness."). 116 The prong ough test-whether an honest answer to the questions asked on voir dire would have supported a valid basis for a challenge for cause-"incorporates a deferential standard of review" because "trial courts [are accorded] considerable discretion in deciding whether to dismiss potential jurors for cause." West v. Holley, 2004 UT 97, ¶¶ 11-12 , 103 P.3d 708 ("[In reviewing post-trial challenges to a juror, we apply | 1 | 1 |
Jau-Fei Chen v. Stewartgreen2 sentences2012See Chen v. Stewart, 2004 UT 82, ¶ 19 , 100 P.3d 1177 ("[ Whether the trial court applied the proper legal standard is a question of law that is reviewed for correctness."). 116 The prong ough test-whether an honest answer to the questions asked on voir dire would have supported a valid basis for a challenge for cause-"incorporates a deferential standard of review" because "trial courts [are accorded] considerable discretion in deciding whether to dismiss potential jurors for cause." West v. Holley, 2004 UT 97, ¶¶ 11-12 , 103 P.3d 708 ("[In reviewing post-trial challenges to a juror, we apply 2012See Chen v. Stewart, 2004 UT 82, ¶ 19 , 100 P.3d 1177 ("[ Whether the trial court applied the proper legal standard is a question of law that is reviewed for correctness."). 116 The prong ough test-whether an honest answer to the questions asked on voir dire would have supported a valid basis for a challenge for cause-"incorporates a deferential standard of review" because "trial courts [are accorded] considerable discretion in deciding whether to dismiss potential jurors for cause." West v. Holley, 2004 UT 97, ¶¶ 11-12 , 103 P.3d 708 ("[In reviewing post-trial challenges to a juror, we apply | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood
green
2 sentences2019The Court held “that to obtain a new trial in such a situation, a party must first demonstrate that a juror failed to answer honestly a material question on voir dire, and then further show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.” Id. at 556 . 2014"The McDonough test mandates a new trial if the moving party demonstrates that (1) 'a juror failed to answer honestly a material question on voir dire, and (2) 'a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause'" Thomas, 830 P.2d at 245 (quoting McDonough, 464 U.S. at 556 , 104 S.Ct. 845 ). | 13 | 1989–2019 |
State v. Evans
green
2 sentences2012However, "we review the legal standards applied by the [trial] court in denying [a] motion [for a new trial] for correctness." State v. Allen, 2005 UT 11, ¶ 50 , 108 P.3d 730 . 114 As a basis for appealing the trial court's denial of his motion for a new trial, Millett challenges the trial court's conclusion that the McDonough test was not satisfied. 2 Specifically, Millett challenges the trial court's determination that Juror Smith did not fail to answer honestly a material question on voir dire as well as the trial court's determination that even if Juror Smith had failed to answer honestly 2012However, "we review the legal standards applied by the [trial] court in denying [a] motion [for a new trial] for correctness." State v. Allen, 2005 UT 11, ¶ 50 , 108 P.3d 730 . 114 As a basis for appealing the trial court's denial of his motion for a new trial, Millett challenges the trial court's conclusion that the McDonough test was not satisfied. 2 Specifically, Millett challenges the trial court's determination that Juror Smith did not fail to answer honestly a material question on voir dire as well as the trial court's determination that even if Juror Smith had failed to answer honestly | 3 | 2007–2012 |
State v. Riddle
neutral
2 sentences2019Riddle asserts that the trial court’s reliance on McDonough was misplaced because there was no allegation in this case that a juror answered a question (continued…) 20180599-CA 6 2019 UT App 150 State v. Riddle CONCLUSION ¶12 Because Riddle presented no evidence to suggest that the juror’s relationship with Van Dyke resulted in either implied or actual bias, he cannot establish that he was denied his right to a fair trial due to jury partiality. 2019The second prong of the McDonough test examines whether “a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause.” Id. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Millett
neutral
2 sentences2014"Under the first prong of the McDonough test, 'the trial court's finding that [a] juror[ 1 ... did not answer a material question dishonestly on voir dire is a question of fact, which we review under a clearly erroneous standard." State v. Millett, 2012 UT App 31 , ] 15, 271 P.3d 178 (alterations and omission in original) (quoting Thomas, 830 P.2d at 245 ). 2014"Under the first prong of the McDonough test, 'the trial court's finding that [a] juror[ 1 ... did not answer a material question dishonestly on voir dire is a question of fact, which we review under a clearly erroneous standard." State v. Millett, 2012 UT App 31 , ] 15, 271 P.3d 178 (alterations and omission in original) (quoting Thomas, 830 P.2d at 245 ). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Allen
green
2 sentences2012However, "we review the legal standards applied by the [trial] court in denying [a] motion [for a new trial] for correctness." State v. Allen, 2005 UT 11, ¶ 50 , 108 P.3d 730 . 114 As a basis for appealing the trial court's denial of his motion for a new trial, Millett challenges the trial court's conclusion that the McDonough test was not satisfied. 2 Specifically, Millett challenges the trial court's determination that Juror Smith did not fail to answer honestly a material question on voir dire as well as the trial court's determination that even if Juror Smith had failed to answer honestly 2012However, "we review the legal standards applied by the [trial] court in denying [a] motion [for a new trial] for correctness." State v. Allen, 2005 UT 11, ¶ 50 , 108 P.3d 730 . 114 As a basis for appealing the trial court's denial of his motion for a new trial, Millett challenges the trial court's conclusion that the McDonough test was not satisfied. 2 Specifically, Millett challenges the trial court's determination that Juror Smith did not fail to answer honestly a material question on voir dire as well as the trial court's determination that even if Juror Smith had failed to answer honestly | 1 | 2012–2012 |
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.