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.
11 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1955–2020 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. Younggreen2 sentences2001As we have previously held, " 'we will not reverse a conviction unless the error is substantial and prejudicial in the sense that there is a reasonable likelihood that in its absence there would have been a more favorable result for the defendant'" State v. Burns, 2000 UT 56, ¶ 35 , 4 P.3d 795 (quoting State v. Young, 853 P.2d 327, 361 (Utah 1993)) (further quotation omitted). 1998See Young, 853 P.2d at 361 (holding "`the standard for dealing with non-constitutional error is that [the court] will not reverse a conviction unless the error is substantial and prejudicial in the sense that there is a reasonable likelihood that in its absence there would have been a more favorable result for the defendant'") (quoting State v. Johnson, 771 P.2d 1071, 1073 (Utah 1989)). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Johnsongreen2 sentences1998See Young, 853 P.2d at 361 (holding "`the standard for dealing with non-constitutional error is that [the court] will not reverse a conviction unless the error is substantial and prejudicial in the sense that there is a reasonable likelihood that in its absence there would have been a more favorable result for the defendant'") (quoting State v. Johnson, 771 P.2d 1071, 1073 (Utah 1989)). 1998See Young, 853 P.2d at 361 (holding “ ‘the standard for dealing with non-constitutional error is that [the court] will not reverse a conviction unless the error is substantial and prejudicial in the sense that there is a reasonable likelihood that in its absence there would have been a more favorable result for the defendant’ ”) (quoting State v. Johnson, 771 P.2d 1071, 1073 (Utah 1989)). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Callihamgreen2 sentences2004Thus, "we will not reverse a conviction unless the error is substantial and prejudicial in the sense that there is a reasonable likelihood that in its absence there would have been a more favorable result for the defendant." Id.; see also State v. Calliham, 2002 UT 86, ¶ 45 , 55 P.3d 573 ("Notwithstanding error by the trial court, we will not reverse a conviction if we find that the error was harmless."). 2004Thus, "we will not reverse a conviction unless the error is substantial and prejudicial in the sense that there is a reasonable likelihood that in its absence there would have been a more favorable result for the defendant." Id.; see also State v. Calliham, 2002 UT 86, ¶ 45 , 55 P.3d 573 ("Notwithstanding error by the trial court, we will not reverse a conviction if we find that the error was harmless."). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Dunngreen1 sentence1997Although the trial court erred in not providing the jury the cautionary instruction, we will not reverse a conviction unless the error was harmful, “ ‘i.e., if absent the error there is a reasonable likelihood of an outcome more favorable to the defendant.’ ” State v. White, 880 P.2d 18, 21 (Utah App.1994) (quoting State v. Dunn, 850 P.2d 1201, 1221 (Utah 1993)); see also Utah R.Crim. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Whitegreen1 sentence1997Although the trial court erred in not providing the jury the cautionary instruction, we will not reverse a conviction unless the error was harmful, “ ‘i.e., if absent the error there is a reasonable likelihood of an outcome more favorable to the defendant.’ ” State v. White, 880 P.2d 18, 21 (Utah App.1994) (quoting State v. Dunn, 850 P.2d 1201, 1221 (Utah 1993)); see also Utah R.Crim. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Dibellogreen2 sentences1995“Only those errors that are harmful or prejudicial to the outcome of a trial or penalty phase provide grounds for granting a new hearing or overturning a conviction.” State v. Young, 853 P.2d 327, 361 (Utah 1993) (citing State v. Dibello, 780 P.2d 1221, 1230 (Utah 1989)). “‘[T]he standard for dealing with non-constitutional error is that [the court] will not reverse a conviction unless the error is substantial and prejudicial in the sense that there is a reasonable likelihood that in its absence there would have been a more favorable result for the defendant.’ ” Id. (quoting State v. Johnson, 1995“Only those errors that are harmful or prejudicial to the outcome of a trial or penalty phase provide grounds for granting a new hearing or overturning a conviction.” State v. Young, 853 P.2d 327, 361 (Utah 1993) (citing State v. Dibello, 780 P.2d 1221, 1230 (Utah 1989)). “‘[T]he standard for dealing with non-constitutional error is that [the court] will not reverse a conviction unless the error is substantial and prejudicial in the sense that there is a reasonable likelihood that in its absence there would have been a more favorable result for the defendant.’ ” Id. (quoting State v. Johnson, | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bishopgreen1 sentence1995“Only those errors that are harmful or prejudicial to the outcome of a trial or penalty phase provide grounds for granting a new hearing or overturning a conviction.” State v. Young, 853 P.2d 327, 361 (Utah 1993) (citing State v. Dibello, 780 P.2d 1221, 1230 (Utah 1989)). “‘[T]he standard for dealing with non-constitutional error is that [the court] will not reverse a conviction unless the error is substantial and prejudicial in the sense that there is a reasonable likelihood that in its absence there would have been a more favorable result for the defendant.’ ” Id. (quoting State v. Johnson, | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hutchisongreen1 sentence1985We will not reverse a conviction unless the error “ ‘is something substantial and prejudicial in the sense that there is a reasonable likelihood that in its absence there would have been a different result.’ ” State v. Hutchinson, Utah, 655 P.2d 635, 636 (1982), quoting State v. Urias, Utah, 609 P.2d 1326, 1329 (1980); accord State v. Fontana, Utah, 680 P.2d 1042, 1048 (1984). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Fontanagreen1 sentence1985We will not reverse a conviction unless the error “ ‘is something substantial and prejudicial in the sense that there is a reasonable likelihood that in its absence there would have been a different result.’ ” State v. Hutchinson, Utah, 655 P.2d 635, 636 (1982), quoting State v. Urias, Utah, 609 P.2d 1326, 1329 (1980); accord State v. Fontana, Utah, 680 P.2d 1042, 1048 (1984). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Uriasgreen1 sentence1985We will not reverse a conviction unless the error “ ‘is something substantial and prejudicial in the sense that there is a reasonable likelihood that in its absence there would have been a different result.’ ” State v. Hutchinson, Utah, 655 P.2d 635, 636 (1982), quoting State v. Urias, Utah, 609 P.2d 1326, 1329 (1980); accord State v. Fontana, Utah, 680 P.2d 1042, 1048 (1984). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Buttars
green
1 sentence2020Rule 30(a) of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure “foreclose[s] reversal of a conviction unless the error is 20170436-CA 24 2020 UT App 87 State v. Buttars substantial and prejudicial in the sense that there is a reasonable likelihood that in its absence there would have been a more favorable result for the defendant.” State v. Dominguez, 2011 UT 11, ¶ 22 , 248 P.3d 473 (quotation simplified). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Dominguez
neutral
2 sentences2020Rule 30(a) of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure “foreclose[s] reversal of a conviction unless the error is 20170436-CA 24 2020 UT App 87 State v. Buttars substantial and prejudicial in the sense that there is a reasonable likelihood that in its absence there would have been a more favorable result for the defendant.” State v. Dominguez, 2011 UT 11, ¶ 22 , 248 P.3d 473 (quotation simplified). 2020Rule 30(a) of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure “foreclose[s] reversal of a conviction unless the error is 20170436-CA 24 2020 UT App 87 State v. Buttars substantial and prejudicial in the sense that there is a reasonable likelihood that in its absence there would have been a more favorable result for the defendant.” State v. Dominguez, 2011 UT 11, ¶ 22 , 248 P.3d 473 (quotation simplified). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. High
green
2 sentences2017Even if we see error, "we will not overturn the defendant's conviction unless the error was harmful." State v. High , 2012 UT App 180 , ¶ 28, 282 P.3d 1046 . ¶ 20 Second, Defendant maintains that his trial counsel's performance was so deficient that he was denied his right to the effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 2017Even if we see error, "we will not overturn the defendant's conviction unless the error was harmful." State v. High , 2012 UT App 180 , ¶ 28, 282 P.3d 1046 . ¶ 20 Second, Defendant maintains that his trial counsel's performance was so deficient that he was denied his right to the effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Hildreth
green
2 sentences2012See id. 119; State v. Hildreth, 2010 UT App 209, ¶52 , 238 P.3d 444 (McHugh, J., concurring) (undertaking a 404(b) analysis to determine whether the trial court's error in failing to conduct such an analysis was harmful). 129 In examining the evidence, a trial court must first decide whether it is "offered for a proper, noncharacter purpose." See Nelson-Waggoner, 2000 UT 59, ¶18 , 6 P.3d 1120 . 2012See id. 119; State v. Hildreth, 2010 UT App 209, ¶52 , 238 P.3d 444 (McHugh, J., concurring) (undertaking a 404(b) analysis to determine whether the trial court's error in failing to conduct such an analysis was harmful). 129 In examining the evidence, a trial court must first decide whether it is "offered for a proper, noncharacter purpose." See Nelson-Waggoner, 2000 UT 59, ¶18 , 6 P.3d 1120 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Nelson-Waggoner
green
2 sentences2012See id. 119; State v. Hildreth, 2010 UT App 209, ¶52 , 238 P.3d 444 (McHugh, J., concurring) (undertaking a 404(b) analysis to determine whether the trial court's error in failing to conduct such an analysis was harmful). 129 In examining the evidence, a trial court must first decide whether it is "offered for a proper, noncharacter purpose." See Nelson-Waggoner, 2000 UT 59, ¶18 , 6 P.3d 1120 . 2012See id. 119; State v. Hildreth, 2010 UT App 209, ¶52 , 238 P.3d 444 (McHugh, J., concurring) (undertaking a 404(b) analysis to determine whether the trial court's error in failing to conduct such an analysis was harmful). 129 In examining the evidence, a trial court must first decide whether it is "offered for a proper, noncharacter purpose." See Nelson-Waggoner, 2000 UT 59, ¶18 , 6 P.3d 1120 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Burns
green
2 sentences2001As we have previously held, " 'we will not reverse a conviction unless the error is substantial and prejudicial in the sense that there is a reasonable likelihood that in its absence there would have been a more favorable result for the defendant'" State v. Burns, 2000 UT 56, ¶ 35 , 4 P.3d 795 (quoting State v. Young, 853 P.2d 327, 361 (Utah 1993)) (further quotation omitted). 2001As we have previously held, " 'we will not reverse a conviction unless the error is substantial and prejudicial in the sense that there is a reasonable likelihood that in its absence there would have been a more favorable result for the defendant'" State v. Burns, 2000 UT 56, ¶ 35 , 4 P.3d 795 (quoting State v. Young, 853 P.2d 327, 361 (Utah 1993)) (further quotation omitted). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Scott
green
1 sentence1955I would affirm the conviction. . 1947, 111 Utah 9 , 175 P.2d 1021 , 1022. . 1944, 106 Utah 307 , 148 P.2d 327 . . | 1 | 1955–1955 |
State v. Nemier
green
2 sentences1955I would affirm the conviction. . 1947, 111 Utah 9 , 175 P.2d 1021 , 1022. . 1944, 106 Utah 307 , 148 P.2d 327 . . 1955I would affirm the conviction. . 1947, 111 Utah 9 , 175 P.2d 1021 , 1022. . 1944, 106 Utah 307 , 148 P.2d 327 . . | 1 | 1955–1955 |
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.