witness defense in Utah

2002NOTES [1] Because he was in close proximity to Defendant during these conversations and participated in them, Lyon testified at trial that in his view Defendant must have been aware that Lyon had heard Defendant's threats. [2] "Where invited error butts up against manifest injustice, the invited error rule prevails." State v. Perdue, 813 P.2d 1201, 1206 (Utah Ct.App. 1991); accord State v. Chaney, 1999 UT App 309, ¶ 54 , 989 P.2d 1091 . [3] In light of this decision, we do not address Defendant's challenge based on ineffective assistance of counsel to his conviction for witness tampering. [4]

2002NOTES [1] Because he was in close proximity to Defendant during these conversations and participated in them, Lyon testified at trial that in his view Defendant must have been aware that Lyon had heard Defendant's threats. [2] "Where invited error butts up against manifest injustice, the invited error rule prevails." State v. Perdue, 813 P.2d 1201, 1206 (Utah Ct.App. 1991); accord State v. Chaney, 1999 UT App 309, ¶ 54 , 989 P.2d 1091 . [3] In light of this decision, we do not address Defendant's challenge based on ineffective assistance of counsel to his conviction for witness tampering. [4]

2002NOTES [1] Because he was in close proximity to Defendant during these conversations and participated in them, Lyon testified at trial that in his view Defendant must have been aware that Lyon had heard Defendant's threats. [2] "Where invited error butts up against manifest injustice, the invited error rule prevails." State v. Perdue, 813 P.2d 1201, 1206 (Utah Ct.App. 1991); accord State v. Chaney, 1999 UT App 309, ¶ 54 , 989 P.2d 1091 . [3] In light of this decision, we do not address Defendant's challenge based on ineffective assistance of counsel to his conviction for witness tampering. [4]

1999See State v. Knight, 734 P.2d 913, 920 (Utah 1987). ¶ 23 Whittle next asserts that the trial court erred in allowing the testimony of Der-ald Ross, a former cellmate of Whittle’s, who testified that Whittle told him he had “used a .38 caliber [gun] to kill a woman here in Utah.” Whittle claims error because (1) the State failed to provide the defense with adequate discovery regarding the witness as required under rule 16(g) of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure, and (2) under Utah Rule of Evidence 403, 6 the probative value of Ross’ testimony was substantially outweighed by the danger of unf

1995Although the reverse is possible, i.e., a witness may claim the privilege to prevent himself from revealing a previous peijury, see, e.g., United States v. Partin, 552 F.2d 621, 632 (5th Cir.1977) (recognizing that a witness “may claim the privilege if his new testimony might suggest that he had perjured himself in testifying on the same subject at a prior proceeding”), the State fails to detail such circumstances in this case.

1984The Utah Rules of Evidence in force at the time of trial of this case 1 permitted testimony by an expert in the form of an opinion if those opinions were “(a) based on facts or data perceived by or personally known or made known to the witness at the hearing, and (b) within the scope of the special knowledge, skill, experience or training possessed by the witness.” Rule 56(2), Utah Rules of Evidence. [Emphasis added.] “The expertise of the witness, his degree of familiarity with the necessary facts, and the logical nexus between his opinion and the facts adduced must be established.” Edwards v

1984See also Day v. Lorenzo Smith & Son, Inc., 17 Utah 2d 221, 226 , 408 P.2d 186 (1965).

1984See also Day v. Lorenzo Smith & Son, Inc., 17 Utah 2d 221, 226 , 408 P.2d 186 (1965).

1982“When a trial court refuses to allow a prosecutor to be called as a witness for the defense, the appellate issue is whether the trial court abused its discretion.” State v. Hogervorst, 90 N.M. 580, 587 , 566 P.2d 828, 835 (1977).

1982“When a trial court refuses to allow a prosecutor to be called as a witness for the defense, the appellate issue is whether the trial court abused its discretion.” State v. Hogervorst, 90 N.M. 580, 587 , 566 P.2d 828, 835 (1977).