446 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2026 138 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 |
|---|---|---|
Strickland v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2026And the Supreme Court stated in Strickland that “[i]f it is easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice . . . that course should be followed.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 . 9 JOHNSON v. STATE Opinion of the Court ¶28 For purposes of this case, we assume without deciding that the district court correctly concluded both that Johnson’s trial counsel rendered deficient performance by proposing an erroneous jury instruction and that Johnson’s appellate counsel rendered deficient performance on appeal by failing to raise the issue under the ineffective 2025“An ineffective assistance of counsel claim raised for the first time on appeal presents a question of law.” State v. Ringstad, 2018 UT App 66, ¶ 32 , 424 P.3d 1052 (cleaned up). 5 ANALYSIS ¶17 To prove ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must establish both prongs of the well-known test articulated in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). | 79 | 180 |
State v. Templingreen2 sentences2021See J.A.L., 2011 UT 27, ¶ 20 (“An ineffective assistance of counsel claim is a mixed question of law and fact.”); State v. Templin, 805 P.2d 182 , 185–86 (Utah 1990) (“There is no reason . . . to depart from the standard of review set out in Strickland simply because the appeal was preceded by a motion for new trial.”). 2015P. 23B(a) ; accord Johnston, 2000 UT App 290 , ¶¶ 12-13 & n. 1, 13 P.3d 175 . 29 See Christensen, 2013 UT App 163 , ¶ 4, 305 P.3d 222 ("An appellant must present this court with the evidence he intends to present on remand and explain how that evidence supports both prongs of the ineffective assistance of counsel test." (internal quotation marks omitted)). 30 State v. Templin, 805 P.2d 182 , 186 (Utah 1990) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). 31 Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 32 Id. at 187 (internal quotation marks omitted). 33 Id. 34 Mr. Maughan confessed to | 20 | 21 |
State v. Bryantgreen2 sentences2008“When an ineffective assistance of counsel claim ‘is raised for the first time on appeal without a prior evidentiary hearing, it presents a question of law.’ ” State v. Holbert, 2002 UT App 426, ¶ 26 , 61 P.3d 291 (quoting State v. Bryant, 965 P.2d 539, 542 (Utah Ct.App.1998)). ¶ 11 Next, McClellan argues that the trial court committed plain error, and that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance, by letting an individual with a conflict of interest sit on the jury. 2007"When an ineffective assistance of counsel claim 'is raised for the first time on appeal without a prior evidentiary hearing, it presents a question of law.'" State v. Holbert, 2002 UT App 426, ¶ 26 , 61 P.3d 291 *801 (quoting State v. Bryant, 965 P.2d 539, 542 (Utah Ct.App.1998)). 13 Finally, Defendant argues that, based on his foregoing arguments, the trial court imposed an unconstitutional sentence, which this court should reverse under rule 22 of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure, see Utah R.Crim. | 11 | 11 |
State v. Clarkgreen2 sentences2025ISSUE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶7 Bell argues that Counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to move for a directed verdict. 1 “An ineffective assistance of counsel claim raised for the first time on appeal presents a question of law.” State v. Clark, 2004 UT 25, ¶ 6 , 89 P.3d 162 . 2025ISSUE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶7 Bell argues that Counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to move for a directed verdict. 1 “An ineffective assistance of counsel claim raised for the first time on appeal presents a question of law.” State v. Clark, 2004 UT 25, ¶ 6 , 89 P.3d 162 . | 9 | 78 |
Honie v. Stategreen2 sentences2025“Because failure to establish either prong of the test is fatal to an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, we are free to address [a defendant’s] claims under either prong.” Honie v. State, 2014 UT 19, ¶ 31 , 342 P.3d 182 . 2025Thus, a defendant’s “failure to establish either prong of the test is fatal to an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.” Honie, 2014 UT 19, ¶ 31 . 20220410-CA 11 2025 UT App 26 State v. Moore I. | 8 | 45 |
State v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2020Because an ineffective assistance of counsel claim “necessarily requires the court to look at the substantive issue the defendant argues his counsel should have raised, and whether the substantive issue had any merit,” we look at the substantive issue only “through the lens of counsel’s performance.” State v. Johnson, 2017 UT 76, ¶ 22 , 416 P.3d 443 . 20180722-CA 20 2020 UT App 125 Jones v. State 4. 2020Because an ineffective assistance of counsel claim “necessarily requires the court to look at the substantive issue the defendant argues his counsel should have raised, and whether the substantive issue had any merit,” we look at the substantive issue only “through the lens of counsel’s performance.” State v. Johnson, 2017 UT 76, ¶ 22 , 416 P.3d 443 . 20180722-CA 20 2020 UT App 125 Jones v. State 4. | 7 | 9 |
State v. Dunngreen2 sentences2018"An ineffective assistance of counsel claim raised for the first time on appeal presents a question of law." State v. Clark , 2004 UT 25 , ¶ 6, 89 P.3d 162 . ¶33 Lastly, Defendant contends that "the cumulative effect of the several errors committed in the trial court deprived [him] of his right to a fair trial." "We will reverse a conviction under this doctrine when 'the cumulative effect of the several errors undermines our confidence ... that a fair trial was had.' " State v. Lomu , 2014 UT App 42 , ¶ 7, 321 P.3d 235 (omission in original) (quoting State v. Dunn , 850 P.2d 1201 , 1229 (Utah 2017“An ineffective assistance of counsel claim raised for the first time on appeal presents a question of law.” State v. Clark, 2004 UT 25, ¶ 6 , 89 P.3d 162 . ¶33 Lastly, Defendant contends that “the cumulative effect of the several errors committed in the trial court deprived [him] of his right to a fail) trial,” “We will reverse a conviction under this doctrine when ‘the cumulative effect of the several errors undermines our confidence ... that a fair trial was had.’ ” State v. Lomu, 2014 UT App. 42, ¶ 7 , 321 P.3d 235 (omission in original) (quoting State v. Dunn, 850 P.2d 1201, 1229 (Utah 19 | 6 | 7 |
State v. Scottgreen2 sentences2023To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, Eddington must show both that Counsel’s performance was deficient, in that it “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness,” and that this deficient performance “prejudiced the defense” such that “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 687–88, 694 (1984); accord State v. Scott, 2020 UT 13, ¶ 28 , 462 P.3d 350 ; State v. Ray, 2020 UT 12, ¶ 24 , 469 P.3d 871 . 2023To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, Eddington must show both that Counsel’s performance was deficient, in that it “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness,” and that this deficient performance “prejudiced the defense” such that “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 687–88, 694 (1984); accord State v. Scott, 2020 UT 13, ¶ 28 , 462 P.3d 350 ; State v. Ray, 2020 UT 12, ¶ 24 , 469 P.3d 871 . | 5 | 15 |
Menzies v. Galetkagreen2 sentences2024In Menzies, we explained that an ineffective assistance of counsel claim “presents a mixed question of law and fact.” 2006 UT 81, ¶ 56 (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 698 (1984)). 2023We therefore deny Mr. Green’s rule 23B motion. 88 466 U.S. 668 (1984). 89 Menzies v. Galetka, 2006 UT 81, ¶ 87 , 150 P.3d 480 (cleaned up). 33 STATE v. GREEN Opinion of the Court determine whether Mr. Green has met his substantial burden, we must “eliminate the distorting effects of hindsight and evaluate the conduct from counsel’s perspective at the time.” 90 And “[b]ecause failure to establish either prong of the test is fatal to an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, we are free to address [Mr. Green’s] claims under either prong.” 91 ¶105 The first prong “requires showing that counsel | 5 | 10 |
Archuleta v. Galetkagreen2 sentences2022Because a defendant must affirmatively prove both prongs of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, “it is not necessary for us to address both components of the inquiry if we determine that a defendant has made an insufficient showing on one.” Archuleta v. Galetka, 2011 UT 73, ¶ 41 , 267 P.3d 232 (cleaned up). 2022Because a defendant must affirmatively prove both prongs of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, “it is not necessary for us to address both components of the inquiry if we determine that a defendant has made an insufficient showing on one.” Archuleta v. Galetka, 2011 UT 73, ¶ 41 , 267 P.3d 232 (cleaned up). | 5 | 10 |
| Parsons v. Barnesgreen | 5 | 5 |
State v. Hardsgreen2 sentences2019See, e.g., State v. Hards, 2015 UT App 42, ¶ 22 , 345 P.3d 769 (denying an ineffective assistance of counsel claim when counsel advised the defendant to testify). 2019See, e.g., State v. Hards, 2015 UT App 42, ¶ 22 , 345 P.3d 769 (denying an ineffective assistance of counsel claim when counsel advised the defendant to testify). | 4 | 11 |
State v. Holbertgreen2 sentences2008“When an ineffective assistance of counsel claim ‘is raised for the first time on appeal without a prior evidentiary hearing, it presents a question of law.’ ” State v. Holbert, 2002 UT App 426, ¶ 26 , 61 P.3d 291 (quoting State v. Bryant, 965 P.2d 539, 542 (Utah Ct.App.1998)). ¶ 11 Next, McClellan argues that the trial court committed plain error, and that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance, by letting an individual with a conflict of interest sit on the jury. 2008“When an ineffective assistance of counsel claim ‘is raised for the first time on appeal without a prior evidentiary hearing, it presents a question of law.’ ” State v. Holbert, 2002 UT App 426, ¶ 26 , 61 P.3d 291 (quoting State v. Bryant, 965 P.2d 539, 542 (Utah Ct.App.1998)). ¶ 11 Next, McClellan argues that the trial court committed plain error, and that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance, by letting an individual with a conflict of interest sit on the jury. | 4 | 7 |
State v. Lenkartgreen2 sentences2022Specifically, we review the district court’s determinations on “both the performance and prejudice components of [Strickland’s] ineffectiveness inquiry” 3 for correctness as “mixed questions of law and fact.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 698 ; see also State v. J.A.L., 2011 UT 27, ¶ 20 , 262 P.3d 1 (“An ineffective assistance of counsel claim is a mixed question of law and fact. 2022Specifically, we review the district court’s determinations on “both the performance and prejudice components of [Strickland’s] ineffectiveness inquiry” 3 for correctness as “mixed questions of law and fact.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 698 ; see also State v. J.A.L., 2011 UT 27, ¶ 20 , 262 P.3d 1 (“An ineffective assistance of counsel claim is a mixed question of law and fact. | 4 | 6 |
State v. Verdegreen2 sentences2012Compare State v. Cruz, 2005 UT 45, ¶ 18 , 122 P.3d 543 (declining to decide whether plain error review applies to claims of structural error in jury instructions, but noting that under federal law an appellant claiming constitutional error “who did not object at trial may only argue plain error or ineffective assistance of counsel on appeal and thus must prove prejudice”), and State v. Malaga, 2006 UT App 103, ¶ 11 , 132 P.3d 703 (stating in context of a challenge to jury instructions that under the ineffective assistance of counsel exception to preservation, defendant has the burden of demons 2012Bair also argues that the exceptional circumstances exception to preservation applies, see generally State v. Holgate, 2000 UT 74, ¶ 11 , 10 P.3d 346 (recognizing the exceptional circumstances exception to the preservation rule), and that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to preserve this issue, see State v. Verde, 770 P.2d 116, 118 (Utah 1989) (noting that an ineffective assistance of counsel claim is a means "to avoid the effect of ... [trial] counsel's failure to preserve the [argument]"). | 4 | 6 |
| State v. Humphriesgreen | 4 | 5 |
| State v. Ellifritzgreen | 4 | 4 |
| State v. Chacongreen | 4 | 4 |
| State v. Tennysongreen | 4 | 4 |
State v. Litherlandgreen2 sentences2021The court perceived the following logical dilemma: Citing this court‘s interpretation of rule 23B in State v. Litherland, 2000 UT 76 , 12 P.3d 92 , it concluded that ―appellate attorneys have a duty to investigate potential ineffective assistance claims that are based on facts outside the record.‖ McCloud, 2019 UT App 35, ¶ 41 (citing Litherland, 2000 UT 76, ¶ 16 ). ―And if an ineffective assistance of counsel claim could have been raised in a rule 23B motion, the general rule is that it will be barred on post-conviction.‖ Id. 2021The court perceived the following logical dilemma: Citing this court‘s interpretation of rule 23B in State v. Litherland, 2000 UT 76 , 12 P.3d 92 , it concluded that ―appellate attorneys have a duty to investigate potential ineffective assistance claims that are based on facts outside the record.‖ McCloud, 2019 UT App 35, ¶ 41 (citing Litherland, 2000 UT 76, ¶ 16 ). ―And if an ineffective assistance of counsel claim could have been raised in a rule 23B motion, the general rule is that it will be barred on post-conviction.‖ Id. | 3 | 20 |
State v. Griffingreen2 sentences2026Importantly, the third and fourth elements require the defendant to “present the court with the evidence he [or she] intends to present on remand and explain how that evidence supports both prongs of the ineffective assistance of counsel test.” State v. Mason, 2024 UT App 171, ¶ 63 , 562 P.3d 1158 (cleaned up), cert. denied, 570 P.3d 658 (Utah 2025). “[I]f the defendant could not meet the test for ineffective assistance of counsel, even if his [or her] new factual allegations were true, there is no reason to remand the case, and we should deny the motion.” Griffin, 2015 UT 18, ¶ 20 . ¶68 James 2026Importantly, the third and fourth elements require the defendant to “present the court with the evidence he [or she] intends to present on remand and explain how that evidence supports both prongs of the ineffective assistance of counsel test.” State v. Mason, 2024 UT App 171, ¶ 63 , 562 P.3d 1158 (cleaned up), cert. denied, 570 P.3d 658 (Utah 2025). “[I]f the defendant could not meet the test for ineffective assistance of counsel, even if his [or her] new factual allegations were true, there is no reason to remand the case, and we should deny the motion.” State v. Griffin, 2015 UT 18, ¶ 20 , | 3 | 13 |
In re C.M.R...green2 sentences2025Additionally, juvenile “courts are in the best position to evaluate the credibility of witnesses,” and thus, “appellate courts defer to juvenile courts on matters of credibility.” In re K.F., 2009 UT 4, ¶ 52 , 201 P.3d 985 . ¶15 “To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, Mother must show that (1) ‘counsel’s performance was deficient’ and (2) this ‘deficient performance prejudiced the defense.’” In re C.M.R., 2020 UT App 114, ¶ 19 , 473 P.3d 184 (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984)). 2024“An ineffective assistance of counsel claim raised for the first time on appeal presents a question of law.” In re C.M.R., 2020 UT App 114, ¶ 11 , 473 P.3d 184 (cleaned up). | 3 | 8 |
State v. Nelsongreen2 sentences2026And if a claim is infirm under one of the prongs, then “the claim fails and the court need not address the other.” State v. Nelson, 2015 UT 62, ¶ 12 , 355 P.3d 1031 . ¶67 To establish deficient performance, Gaines must show that Counsel’s “representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.” Popp, 2019 UT App 173, ¶ 26 (cleaned up). 2024“In a situation where the trial court has held a Rule 23B hearing and made specific findings relevant to an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, we defer to the trial court’s findings of fact.” State v. Huggins, 920 P.2d 1195, 1198 (Utah Ct. App. 1996); accord Nelson, 2015 UT 62, ¶ 11 . | 3 | 5 |
| State v. Irwingreen | 3 | 4 |
| State v. Meikgreen | 3 | 3 |
| State in Interest of EH v. AHgreen | 3 | 3 |
| State v. Lowgreen | 3 | 3 |
| State v. Taylorgreen | 3 | 3 |
| State v. Brandleygreen | 3 | 3 |
| State v. Rossred | 3 | 3 |
State v. Ottgreen2 sentences2022“An ineffective assistance of counsel claim raised for the first time on appeal presents a question of law.” State v. Ott, 2010 UT 1, ¶ 16 , 247 P.3d 344 (cleaned up). 2022“An ineffective assistance of counsel claim raised for the first time on appeal presents a question of law.” State v. Ott, 2010 UT 1, ¶ 16 , 247 P.3d 344 (cleaned up). | 2 | 23 |
State v. Poppgreen2 sentences2026“Because failure to establish either prong of the test is fatal to an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, we are free to address [such claims] under either prong.” State v. Popp, 2019 UT App 173, ¶ 25 , 453 P.3d 657 (cleaned up). 2026“Because failure to establish either prong of the test is fatal to an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, we are free to address [such claims] under either prong.” State v. Popp, 2019 UT App 173, ¶ 25 , 453 P.3d 657 (cleaned up). | 2 | 13 |
State v. Suhailgreen2 sentences2025To obtain a remand under this rule, “a defendant must present the court with the evidence he [or she] intends to present on remand and explain how that evidence supports both prongs of the ineffective assistance of counsel test.” State v. Suhail, 2023 UT App 15, ¶ 126 , 525 P.3d 550 (cleaned up), cert. denied, 531 P.3d 730 (Utah 2023). 2025To obtain a remand under this rule, “a defendant must present the court with the evidence he [or she] intends to present on remand and explain how that evidence supports both prongs of the ineffective assistance of counsel test.” State v. Suhail, 2023 UT App 15, ¶ 126 , 525 P.3d 550 (cleaned up), cert. denied, 531 P.3d 730 (Utah 2023). | 2 | 7 |
| State v. Gallegosgreen | 2 | 4 |
| Kimmelman v. Morrisongreen | 2 | 4 |
| State v. Cruzgreen | 2 | 4 |
| State v. Johnsongreen | 2 | 3 |
| State v. Perduegreen | 2 | 3 |
| State v. Kelleygreen | 2 | 3 |
Layton City v. Carrgreen2 sentences2021On the other hand, when a sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim is not preserved but is raised under the ineffective assistance of counsel exception to preservation, it “presents a question of law, and to prevail on [such] ineffective assistance of counsel claims, [the defendant] must demonstrate that counsel’s failure to raise the sufficiency issues to the trial court’s attention was both objectively deficient and prejudicial.” State v. Heath, 2019 UT App 186, ¶ 25 , 453 P.3d 955 (cleaned up). ¶19 Darnstaedt further argues that his counsel was ineffective because he “(1) did not ensure that the j 2021On the other hand, when a sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim is not preserved but is raised under the ineffective assistance of counsel exception to preservation, it “presents a question of law, and to prevail on [such] ineffective assistance of counsel claims, [the defendant] must demonstrate that counsel’s failure to raise the sufficiency issues to the trial court’s attention was both objectively deficient and prejudicial.” State v. Heath, 2019 UT App 186, ¶ 25 , 453 P.3d 955 (cleaned up). ¶19 Darnstaedt further argues that his counsel was ineffective because he “(1) did not ensure that the j | 1 | 8 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Fowers
green
2 sentences2016The instruction stated, "Before you can find the Defendant 'guilty of the lesser-included offense of ATTEMPTED MAN SLAUGHTER, ... you must find beyond a reasonable doubt [that the] affirmative defense of imperfect-self defense does not apply." The jury found Garcia guilty of one count of attempted murder, both counts of discharge of a firearm, and the count of possessing a firearm as a restricted person. 1 Garcia appealsf ISSUES AND STANDARDS OF REVIEW 18 Garcia contends that Trial Counsel was ineffective for failing to object to a jury instruction "that told the jury to convict [Garcia] of le 2016The instruction stated, "Before you can find the Defendant 'guilty of the lesser-included offense of ATTEMPTED MAN SLAUGHTER, ... you must find beyond a reasonable doubt [that the] affirmative defense of imperfect-self defense does not apply." The jury found Garcia guilty of one count of attempted murder, both counts of discharge of a firearm, and the count of possessing a firearm as a restricted person. 1 Garcia appealsf ISSUES AND STANDARDS OF REVIEW 18 Garcia contends that Trial Counsel was ineffective for failing to object to a jury instruction "that told the jury to convict [Garcia] of le | 6 | 2012–2016 |
State v. Walker
green
2 sentences2015Mr. Houston argues that had this testimony been presented to the jury, it would have made a 159 See State v. Walker, 2010 UT App 157, ¶ 16 , 235 P.3d 766 (noting expert testimony is not critical when same information can be elicited on cross-examination). 160 See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689 (noting that to succeed on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, ―the defendant must overcome the presumption that, under the circumstances, the challenged action might be considered sound trial strategy‖ (internal quotation marks omitted)). 39 STATE v. HOUSTON Opinion of the Court difference in the o 2015Mr. Houston argues that had this testimony been presented to the jury, it would have made a 159 See State v. Walker, 2010 UT App 157, ¶ 16 , 235 P.3d 766 (noting expert testimony is not critical when same information can be elicited on cross-examination). 160 See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689 (noting that to succeed on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, ―the defendant must overcome the presumption that, under the circumstances, the challenged action might be considered sound trial strategy‖ (internal quotation marks omitted)). 39 STATE v. HOUSTON Opinion of the Court difference in the o | 6 | 2011–2015 |
| State v. Fleming green | 5 | 2022–2025 |
State v. Lee
green
2 sentences2025“Claims of erroneous jury instructions present questions of law that we review for correctness.” State v. Lee, 2014 UT App 4, ¶ 7 , 318 P.3d 1164 (cleaned up). ¶13 In addition to his immediate claims on appeal, Roybal has filed a motion under rule 23B of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure, requesting that we remand this case for supplementation of the record in support of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. 2025“Claims of erroneous jury instructions present questions of law that we review for correctness.” State v. Lee, 2014 UT App 4, ¶ 7 , 318 P.3d 1164 (cleaned up). ¶13 In addition to his immediate claims on appeal, Roybal has filed a motion under rule 23B of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure, requesting that we remand this case for supplementation of the record in support of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. | 5 | 2014–2025 |
| State v. Gallegos green | 5 | 2018–2024 |
| State v. Wilder green | 5 | 2018–2020 |
| State v. Montoya green | 5 | 2004–2018 |
| State v. Millard green | 5 | 2014–2015 |
| State v. Sandoval neutral | 4 | 2026–2026 |
| State v. Forbush green | 4 | 2024–2026 |
| State v. McNeil green | 4 | 2016–2024 |
| In re S.S. green | 4 | 2020–2023 |
| State v. King green | 4 | 2019–2023 |
| S.E. v. State neutral | 4 | 2020–2023 |
| State v. Bowen green | 4 | 2020–2021 |
| State v. Mason green | 3 | 2024–2026 |
| State v. Saedt green | 3 | 2026–2026 |
| State v. Wilkes green | 3 | 2020–2025 |
| State v. Ringstad green | 3 | 2018–2025 |
| State v. Samples green | 3 | 2024–2025 |
| State v. Torres green | 3 | 2019–2022 |
| Lockhart v. Fretwell green | 3 | 2005–2022 |
| State v. Beckering green | 3 | 2019–2021 |
| State v. Dean green | 3 | 2009–2021 |
| State v. Lane green | 3 | 2019–2020 |
| State v. Hatch green | 3 | 2019–2020 |
| State v. Kozlov green | 3 | 2013–2020 |
| State v. Perry green | 3 | 2010–2019 |
| State v. Pedersen green | 3 | 2012–2015 |
| State v. Smit green | 3 | 2006–2012 |
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.