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.
12 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 2017–2026 4 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. Thorntongreen2 sentences2018But see State v. Thornton , 2017 UT 9 , ¶ 58, 391 P.3d 1016 ("The threshold 404(b) question is whether the evidence has a plausible, avowed purpose beyond the propensity purpose that the rule deems improper. 2018But see State v. Thornton , 2017 UT 9 , ¶ 58, 391 P.3d 1016 ("The threshold 404(b) question is whether the evidence has a plausible, avowed purpose beyond the propensity purpose that the rule deems improper. | 2 | 9 |
State v. Greengreen1 sentence2026See 2023 UT 10, ¶ 63 (noting “the propensity purpose that the rule deems improper” (quotation simplified)). ¶63 But here’s the rub: you can’t have anything approaching a functional ban on propensity evidence if you let prior-bad-acts evidence come in for the purpose of rebutting a fabrication defense. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Thorntongreen2 sentences2018But see State v. Thornton , 2017 UT 9 , ¶ 58, 391 P.3d 1016 ("The threshold 404(b) question is whether the evidence has a plausible, avowed purpose beyond the propensity purpose that the rule deems improper. 2018But see State v. Thornton , 2017 UT 9 , ¶ 58, 391 P.3d 1016 ("The threshold 404(b) question is whether the evidence has a plausible, avowed purpose beyond the propensity purpose that the rule deems improper. | 1 | 9 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Shay
green
1 sentence2026In Green, the court noted that the prior-bad-acts evidence 20240257-CA 28 2026 UT App 83 State v. Shay was “highly probative of the primary issue at trial—whether the complaining witness is fabricating her allegation of sexual assault.” Id. ¶ 67. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Meik
green
2 sentences2025A. Noncharacter Purpose ¶23 “The threshold 404(b) question is whether the evidence has a plausible, avowed purpose beyond the propensity purpose that the rule deems improper.” State v. Meik, 2024 UT App 46, ¶ 37 , 547 P.3d 878 (quotation simplified), cert. denied, 554 P.3d 923 (Utah 2024). 2025A. Noncharacter Purpose ¶23 “The threshold 404(b) question is whether the evidence has a plausible, avowed purpose beyond the propensity purpose that the rule deems improper.” State v. Meik, 2024 UT App 46, ¶ 37 , 547 P.3d 878 (quotation simplified), cert. denied, 554 P.3d 923 (Utah 2024). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Verde
red
2 sentences2017If it does then the evidence is presumptively admissible (subject to rule 402 and 403 analysis). ¶59 We have suggested that an avowed proper purpose may be rejected as a pretext or ―ruse.‖ Verde, 2012 UT 60, ¶ 22 . 2017If it does then the evidence is presumptively admissible (subject to rule 402 and 403 analysis). ¶59 We have suggested that an avowed proper purpose may be rejected as a pretext or “ruse.” Verde, 2012 UT 60, ¶ 22 , 296 P.3d 673 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |