exceptions to the general rule in Utah

2020See State v. Hodges, 2002 UT 117, ¶ 5 , 63 P.3d 66 (“Because defendant has not asserted either of the exceptions to the general rule—plain error 20180827-CA 18 2020 UT App 76 State v. Florez or exceptional circumstances—we decline to address [his claims].”); State v. Soules, 2012 UT App 238, ¶ 8 , 286 P.3d 25 (stating that, where the defendant “does not assert plain error or exceptional circumstances[,] . . .we do not address the merits” of the claim).

2020See State v. Hodges, 2002 UT 117, ¶ 5 , 63 P.3d 66 (“Because defendant has not asserted either of the exceptions to the general rule—plain error 20180827-CA 18 2020 UT App 76 State v. Florez or exceptional circumstances—we decline to address [his claims].”); State v. Soules, 2012 UT App 238, ¶ 8 , 286 P.3d 25 (stating that, where the defendant “does not assert plain error or exceptional circumstances[,] . . .we do not address the merits” of the claim).

2019In the absence of any definitive case law to the contrary, it would be difficult for (continued…) 20180441-CA 9 2019 UT App 152 State v. Fredrick 66 (“Because defendant has not asserted either of the exceptions to the general rule—plain error or exceptional circumstances— we decline to address [his claims].”); State v. Soules, 2012 UT App 238, ¶ 8 , 286 P.3d 25 (stating that where the defendant “does not assert plain error or exceptional circumstances[,] . . .we do not address the merits” of the claim).

1996Likewise, the majority’s holding that Brown falls within one of the exceptions to the general rule of retroactivity that a “new rule governing criminal procedure [which] constitutes a clear break with the past” is also explicitly barred by Griffith. 479 U.S. at 328 , 107 S.Ct. at 716 .

1996Likewise, the majority’s holding that Brown falls within one of the exceptions to the general rule of retroactivity that a “new rule governing criminal procedure [which] constitutes a clear break with the past” is also explicitly barred by Griffith. 479 U.S. at 328 , 107 S.Ct. at 716 .

1942R. 84, 94; People v. Argentos, 156 Cal. 720 , 106 P. 65 ; State v. Wheeler, 89 Kan. 160 , 130 P. 656 ; 22 C.

1942R. 84, 94; People v. Argentos, 156 Cal. 720 , 106 P. 65 ; State v. Wheeler, 89 Kan. 160 , 130 P. 656 ; 22 C.

1942R. 84, 94; People v. Argentos, 156 Cal. 720 , 106 P. 65 ; State v. Wheeler, 89 Kan. 160 , 130 P. 656 ; 22 C.

1942R. 84, 94; People v. Argentos, 156 Cal. 720 , 106 P. 65 ; State v. Wheeler, 89 Kan. 160 , 130 P. 656 ; 22 C.

1942While such evidence is admissible in a proper case, the exceptions to the general rule excluding them “are carefully limited and guarded by the courts, and their number should not be increased.” State v. Willson, 113 Or. 450 , 230 P. 810 , 233 P. 259 , 39 A. L.

1942While such evidence is admissible in a proper case, the exceptions to the general rule excluding them “are carefully limited and guarded by the courts, and their number should not be increased.” State v. Willson, 113 Or. 450 , 230 P. 810 , 233 P. 259 , 39 A. L.

1938Comm., 190 Cal. 587 , 213 P. 977 ] is a statement of the exceptions to the general rule, as follows: “ ‘Exceptions to the general rule are cases where an employe, either in his employer’s or his own time, is going to or from his place of employment on some substantial mission for his employer growing out of his employment.

1938Comm., 190 Cal. 587 , 213 P. 977 ] is a statement of the exceptions to the general rule, as follows: “ ‘Exceptions to the general rule are cases where an employe, either in his employer’s or his own time, is going to or from his place of employment on some substantial mission for his employer growing out of his employment.

1934Such exceptions, and as stated in the case of State v. Bowen , 43 Utah 111 , 134 P. 623 , chiefly are: When it is material and proper to show motive or a scheme or plan for the commission of the alleged offense; where criminal intent or guilty knowledge of the wrongful or unlawful act or acts is material, especially as illustrated in cases of passing or uttering forged instruments, counterfeit coin or money, receiving stolen property, and in other cases where scienter or guilty knowledge is a material subject of inquiry; where the alleged offense and another claimed similar offense constitute

1934Such exceptions, and as stated in the case of State v. Bowen , 43 Utah 111 , 134 P. 623 , chiefly are: When it is material and proper to show motive or a scheme or plan for the commission of the alleged offense; where criminal intent or guilty knowledge of the wrongful or unlawful act or acts is material, especially as illustrated in cases of passing or uttering forged instruments, counterfeit coin or money, receiving stolen property, and in other cases where scienter or guilty knowledge is a material subject of inquiry; where the alleged offense and another claimed similar offense constitute

1929R. 930; Chandler v. Industrial Commission, 60 Utah 387 , 208 P. 499, 500 ; Beaver City v. Industrial Commission, 67 Utah 8 , 245 P. 378 .

1929R. 930; Chandler v. Industrial Commission, 60 Utah 387 , 208 P. 499, 500 ; Beaver City v. Industrial Commission, 67 Utah 8 , 245 P. 378 .

1929The employee did not come within any of the exceptions to the general rule. *383 Petitioner cites and relies upon the following cases: Chandler v. Industrial Commission, 55 Utah 213 , 184 P. 1020 , 8 A. L.

1929The employee did not come within any of the exceptions to the general rule. *383 Petitioner cites and relies upon the following cases: Chandler v. Industrial Commission, 55 Utah 213 , 184 P. 1020 , 8 A. L.

1929R. 930; Chandler v. Industrial Commission, 60 Utah 387 , 208 P. 499, 500 ; Beaver City v. Industrial Commission, 67 Utah 8 , 245 P. 378 .

1929R. 930; Chandler v. Industrial Commission, 60 Utah 387 , 208 P. 499, 500 ; Beaver City v. Industrial Commission, 67 Utah 8 , 245 P. 378 .

1917The exceptions are also fully stated in the annotator’s notes to the case of Ziska v. Ziska, 20 Okl. 634 , 95 Pac. 254 , 23 L.

1917The exceptions are also fully stated in the annotator’s notes to the case of Ziska v. Ziska, 20 Okl. 634 , 95 Pac. 254 , 23 L.

1906The case of In re Strasburger, 132, N. Y. 128, 30 N. E. 379 , is one of that class of cases where a person, after entering into a lease containing certain covenants, become insane, and his estate is sued for a breach of these covenants.