accused challenge in Utah

10 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1899–2025 3 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.

Followed or applied (9)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Hamiltongreen utah · 1992 · cited in 2 Utah opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018 2 sentences 2018We have concluded that admission of less probative character evidence was harmless in State v. Hamilton . 827 P.2d 232 , 233 (Utah 1992). 2018We have concluded that admission of less probative character evidence was harmless in State v. Hamilton. 827 P.2d 232, 233 (Utah 1992).	1	2
United States v. Palacios-Casquetegreen ca11 · 1995 · cited in 1 Utah opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 2 sentences 2004However, the government has expressly declined to raise a waiver argument, citing United States v. Bell, 70 F.3d 495, 496-97 (7th Cir.1995) (challenge to constitutionality of statute of conviction is, in certain circumstances, jurisdictional claim not waived by guilty plea)."); Bell, 70 F.3d at 496-97 (addressing defendant's challenge to the constitutionality of the underlying statute after recognizing the principle that such a challenge "is a jurisdictional claim which is not waived by the guilty plea"); United States v. Palacios-Casquete, 55 F.3d 557, 561 (11th Cir.1995) ("A guilty plea ... 2004However, the government has expressly declined to raise a waiver argument, citing United States v. Bell, 70 F.3d 495, 496-97 (7th Cir.1995) (challenge to constitutionality of statute of conviction is, in certain circumstances, jurisdictional claim not waived by guilty plea).”); Bell, 70 F.3d at 496-97 (addressing defendant’s challenge to the constitutionality of the underlying statute after recognizing the principle that such a challenge “is a jurisdictional claim which is not waived by the guilty plea”); United States v. Palacios-Casquete, 55 F.3d 557, 561 (11th Cir.1995) (“A guilty plea ...	1	1
United States v. Kenneth L. Bellgreen ca7 · 1995 · cited in 1 Utah opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 2 sentences 2004However, the government has expressly declined to raise a waiver argument, citing United States v. Bell, 70 F.3d 495, 496-97 (7th Cir.1995) (challenge to constitutionality of statute of conviction is, in certain circumstances, jurisdictional claim not waived by guilty plea)."); Bell, 70 F.3d at 496-97 (addressing defendant's challenge to the constitutionality of the underlying statute after recognizing the principle that such a challenge "is a jurisdictional claim which is not waived by the guilty plea"); United States v. Palacios-Casquete, 55 F.3d 557, 561 (11th Cir.1995) ("A guilty plea ... 2004However, the government has expressly declined to raise a waiver argument, citing United States v. Bell, 70 F.3d 495, 496-97 (7th Cir.1995) (challenge to constitutionality of statute of conviction is, in certain circumstances, jurisdictional claim not waived by guilty plea)."); Bell, 70 F.3d at 496-97 (addressing defendant's challenge to the constitutionality of the underlying statute after recognizing the principle that such a challenge "is a jurisdictional claim which is not waived by the guilty plea"); United States v. Palacios-Casquete, 55 F.3d 557, 561 (11th Cir.1995) ("A guilty plea ...	1	1
United States v. Maria Yanibe Montillagreen ca9 · 1989 · cited in 1 Utah opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 2 sentences 2004However, the government has expressly declined to raise a waiver argument, citing United States v. Bell, 70 F.3d 495, 496-97 (7th Cir.1995) (challenge to constitutionality of statute of conviction is, in certain circumstances, jurisdictional claim not waived by guilty plea)."); Bell, 70 F.3d at 496-97 (addressing defendant's challenge to the constitutionality of the underlying statute after recognizing the principle that such a challenge "is a jurisdictional claim which is not waived by the guilty plea"); United States v. Palacios-Casquete, 55 F.3d 557, 561 (11th Cir.1995) ("A guilty plea ... 2004However, the government has expressly declined to raise a waiver argument, citing United States v. Bell, 70 F.3d 495, 496-97 (7th Cir.1995) (challenge to constitutionality of statute of conviction is, in certain circumstances, jurisdictional claim not waived by guilty plea).”); Bell, 70 F.3d at 496-97 (addressing defendant’s challenge to the constitutionality of the underlying statute after recognizing the principle that such a challenge “is a jurisdictional claim which is not waived by the guilty plea”); United States v. Palacios-Casquete, 55 F.3d 557, 561 (11th Cir.1995) (“A guilty plea ...	1	1
Daniel Francis Marzano v. Lawrence Kincheloegreen ca9 · 1990 · cited in 1 Utah opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 2 sentences 2004However, the government has expressly declined to raise a waiver argument, citing United States v. Bell, 70 F.3d 495, 496-97 (7th Cir.1995) (challenge to constitutionality of statute of conviction is, in certain circumstances, jurisdictional claim not waived by guilty plea)."); Bell, 70 F.3d at 496-97 (addressing defendant's challenge to the constitutionality of the underlying statute after recognizing the principle that such a challenge "is a jurisdictional claim which is not waived by the guilty plea"); United States v. Palacios-Casquete, 55 F.3d 557, 561 (11th Cir.1995) ("A guilty plea ... 2004However, the government has expressly declined to raise a waiver argument, citing United States v. Bell, 70 F.3d 495, 496-97 (7th Cir.1995) (challenge to constitutionality of statute of conviction is, in certain circumstances, jurisdictional claim not waived by guilty plea).”); Bell, 70 F.3d at 496-97 (addressing defendant’s challenge to the constitutionality of the underlying statute after recognizing the principle that such a challenge “is a jurisdictional claim which is not waived by the guilty plea”); United States v. Palacios-Casquete, 55 F.3d 557, 561 (11th Cir.1995) (“A guilty plea ...	1	1
United States v. Jerry Bradford Cox, United States of America v. Doss Foreman, Jr., United States of America v. Maurice Rosegreen ca6 · 1972 · cited in 1 Utah opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 2 sentences 2004If [the defendant] ple[aded] guilty to something which was not a crime, he is not now precluded from raising this jurisdictional defect, which goes `to the very power of the State to bring the defendant into court to answer the charge brought against him.'" (quoting Blackledge, 417 U.S. at 30 , 94 S.Ct. 2098 )); United States v. Hill, 564 F.2d 1179, 1180 (5th Cir.1977) (per curiam) (recognizing that "a guilty plea does not bar an appeal that asserts that... the charge is unconstitutional"); United States v. Tallant, 547 F.2d 1291 , 1295 n. 5 (5th Cir.1977) (recognizing that a claim based upon 2004If [the defendant] ple[aded] guilty to something which was not a crime, he is not now precluded from raising this jurisdictional defect, which goes ‘to the very power of the State to bring the defendant into court to answer the charge brought against him.’ ” (quoting Blackledge, 417 U.S. at 30 , 94 S.Ct. 2098 )); United States v. Hill, 564 F.2d 1179, 1180 (5th Cir.1977) (per cu-riam) (recognizing that “a guilty plea does not bar an appeal that asserts that ... the charge is unconstitutional”); United States v. Tallant, 547 F.2d 1291 , 1295 n. 5 (5th Cir. 1977) (recognizing that a claim based u	1	1
Maria Mercado, A/K/A Crespo v. Nelson A. Rockefeller, Governor of the State of New York,respondents-Appelleesgreen ca2 · 1974 · cited in 1 Utah opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 2 sentences 2004If [the defendant] ple[aded] guilty to something which was not a crime, he is not now precluded from raising this jurisdictional defect, which goes `to the very power of the State to bring the defendant into court to answer the charge brought against him.'" (quoting Blackledge, 417 U.S. at 30 , 94 S.Ct. 2098 )); United States v. Hill, 564 F.2d 1179, 1180 (5th Cir.1977) (per curiam) (recognizing that "a guilty plea does not bar an appeal that asserts that... the charge is unconstitutional"); United States v. Tallant, 547 F.2d 1291 , 1295 n. 5 (5th Cir.1977) (recognizing that a claim based upon 2004If [the defendant] ple[aded] guilty to something which was not a crime, he is not now precluded from raising this jurisdictional defect, which goes ‘to the very power of the State to bring the defendant into court to answer the charge brought against him.’ ” (quoting Blackledge, 417 U.S. at 30 , 94 S.Ct. 2098 )); United States v. Hill, 564 F.2d 1179, 1180 (5th Cir.1977) (per cu-riam) (recognizing that “a guilty plea does not bar an appeal that asserts that ... the charge is unconstitutional”); United States v. Tallant, 547 F.2d 1291 , 1295 n. 5 (5th Cir. 1977) (recognizing that a claim based u	1	1
United States v. Fred Hillgreen ca5 · 1977 · cited in 1 Utah opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 2 sentences 2004If [the defendant] ple[aded] guilty to something which was not a crime, he is not now precluded from raising this jurisdictional defect, which goes `to the very power of the State to bring the defendant into court to answer the charge brought against him.'" (quoting Blackledge, 417 U.S. at 30 , 94 S.Ct. 2098 )); United States v. Hill, 564 F.2d 1179, 1180 (5th Cir.1977) (per curiam) (recognizing that "a guilty plea does not bar an appeal that asserts that... the charge is unconstitutional"); United States v. Tallant, 547 F.2d 1291 , 1295 n. 5 (5th Cir.1977) (recognizing that a claim based upon 2004If [the defendant] ple[aded] guilty to something which was not a crime, he is not now precluded from raising this jurisdictional defect, which goes ‘to the very power of the State to bring the defendant into court to answer the charge brought against him.’ ” (quoting Blackledge, 417 U.S. at 30 , 94 S.Ct. 2098 )); United States v. Hill, 564 F.2d 1179, 1180 (5th Cir.1977) (per cu-riam) (recognizing that “a guilty plea does not bar an appeal that asserts that ... the charge is unconstitutional”); United States v. Tallant, 547 F.2d 1291 , 1295 n. 5 (5th Cir. 1977) (recognizing that a claim based u	1	1
State v. Bishopgreen utah · 1988 · cited in 1 Utah opinions naming this issue, 1989–1989 2 sentences 1989Under that standard, which is not as strict as the federal constitutional standard, see Bishop, 753 P.2d at 500 (Zimmerman, J., concurring); Hackford, 737 P.2d at 204 , an error requires reversal only if there is "a reasonable likelihood of a more favorable result” for the accused had the error not occurred. 1989Under that standard, which is not as strict as the federal constitutional standard, see Bishop, 753 P.2d at 500 (Zimmerman, J., concurring); Hackford, 737 P.2d at 204 , an error requires reversal only if there is "a reasonable likelihood of a more favorable result" for the accused had the error not occurred.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (20)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Lopez green utah · 2018 2 sentences 2021ADMISSION OF THE OTHER-ACTS EVIDENCE PREJUDICED RICHINS ¶107 Richins argues that he should receive a new trial because admission of the other-acts evidence prejudiced him. “[A]n [evidentiary] error requires reversal only if there is ‘a reasonable likelihood of a more favorable result’ for the accused had the error not occurred.” State v. Lopez, 2018 UT 5, ¶ 30 , 417 P.3d 116 (alteration in original) (citation omitted). 2021ADMISSION OF THE OTHER-ACTS EVIDENCE PREJUDICED RICHINS ¶107 Richins argues that he should receive a new trial because admission of the other-acts evidence prejudiced him. “[A]n [evidentiary] error requires reversal only if there is ‘a reasonable likelihood of a more favorable result’ for the accused had the error not occurred.” State v. Lopez, 2018 UT 5, ¶ 30 , 417 P.3d 116 (alteration in original) (citation omitted).	2	2021–2025
State v. Tuttle green utah · 1989 2 sentences 2018Dr. Bryan's Testimony Likely Swayed the Jury and Was Therefore Harmful Error ¶ 30 "[A]n [evidentiary] error requires reversal only if there is 'a reasonable likelihood of a more favorable result' for the accused had the error not occurred." State v. Tuttle , 780 P.2d 1203 , 1213 n.12 (Utah 1989) (citation omitted). 2018Bailey , 2002 UT 58 , ¶ 20, 52 P.3d 1158 ; Verde , 2012 UT 60 , ¶¶ 57-61, 296 P.3d 673 . ¶ 61 Although the 404(b) evidence was admitted in error, "an [evidentiary] error requires reversal only if there is 'a reasonable likelihood of a more favorable result' for the accused had the error not occurred." State v. Tuttle , 780 P.2d 1203 , 1213 n.12 (citation omitted).	2	2018–2018
State v. Eddington green utahctapp · 2023 1 sentence 2023Even though Emily may have been able to explain why she requested certain things or went along with them, her confirmation that those activities occurred could have increased Eddington’s credibility in the eyes of the jury, and the jury should have heard about this from Emily herself. 20180597-CA 32 2023 UT App 19	1	2023–2023
Bailey v. Bayles green utah · 2002 2 sentences 2018Bailey , 2002 UT 58 , ¶ 20, 52 P.3d 1158 ; Verde , 2012 UT 60 , ¶¶ 57-61, 296 P.3d 673 . ¶ 61 Although the 404(b) evidence was admitted in error, "an [evidentiary] error requires reversal only if there is 'a reasonable likelihood of a more favorable result' for the accused had the error not occurred." State v. Tuttle , 780 P.2d 1203 , 1213 n.12 (citation omitted). 2018Bailey , 2002 UT 58 , ¶ 20, 52 P.3d 1158 ; Verde , 2012 UT 60 , ¶¶ 57-61, 296 P.3d 673 . ¶ 61 Although the 404(b) evidence was admitted in error, "an [evidentiary] error requires reversal only if there is 'a reasonable likelihood of a more favorable result' for the accused had the error not occurred." State v. Tuttle , 780 P.2d 1203 , 1213 n.12 (citation omitted).	1	2018–2018
State v. Verde green utah · 2012 2 sentences 2018Bailey , 2002 UT 58 , ¶ 20, 52 P.3d 1158 ; Verde , 2012 UT 60 , ¶¶ 57-61, 296 P.3d 673 . ¶ 61 Although the 404(b) evidence was admitted in error, "an [evidentiary] error requires reversal only if there is 'a reasonable likelihood of a more favorable result' for the accused had the error not occurred." State v. Tuttle , 780 P.2d 1203 , 1213 n.12 (citation omitted). 2018Bailey , 2002 UT 58 , ¶ 20, 52 P.3d 1158 ; Verde , 2012 UT 60 , ¶¶ 57-61, 296 P.3d 673 . ¶ 61 Although the 404(b) evidence was admitted in error, "an [evidentiary] error requires reversal only if there is 'a reasonable likelihood of a more favorable result' for the accused had the error not occurred." State v. Tuttle , 780 P.2d 1203 , 1213 n.12 (citation omitted).	1	2018–2018
State v. Tiedemann green utah · 2007 1 sentence 2017We think this ill advised. 48 _____________________________________________________________ 44 Tiedemann, 2007 UT 49, ¶ 41 . 45 The concurrence acknowledges “that Tiedemann purported to state a requirement of state due process” and concludes that we should “leave open the possibility that our Utah Due Process Clause may have a role to play in establishing a ‘floor’ or minimum standard protecting an accused whose defense is interfered with by the destruction of material evidence.” Infra ¶ 68.	1	2017–2017
Davis v. Alaska green scotus · 1974 2 sentences 2005Id. at 315-16 , 94 S.Ct. 1105 . 2005Id. at 315-16 , 94 S.Ct. 1105 .	1	2005–2005
The United States of America v. Eddie Barboa green ca10 · 1985 2 sentences 2004However, the government has expressly declined to raise a waiver argument, citing United States v. Bell, 70 F.3d 495, 496-97 (7th Cir.1995) (challenge to constitutionality of statute of conviction is, in certain circumstances, jurisdictional claim not waived by guilty plea)."); Bell, 70 F.3d at 496-97 (addressing defendant's challenge to the constitutionality of the underlying statute after recognizing the principle that such a challenge "is a jurisdictional claim which is not waived by the guilty plea"); United States v. Palacios-Casquete, 55 F.3d 557, 561 (11th Cir.1995) ("A guilty plea ... 2004However, the government has expressly declined to raise a waiver argument, citing United States v. Bell, 70 F.3d 495, 496-97 (7th Cir.1995) (challenge to constitutionality of statute of conviction is, in certain circumstances, jurisdictional claim not waived by guilty plea).”); Bell, 70 F.3d at 496-97 (addressing defendant’s challenge to the constitutionality of the underlying statute after recognizing the principle that such a challenge “is a jurisdictional claim which is not waived by the guilty plea”); United States v. Palacios-Casquete, 55 F.3d 557, 561 (11th Cir.1995) (“A guilty plea ...	1	2004–2004
United States v. Maria Yanibe Montilla green ca9 · 1990 2 sentences 2004However, the government has expressly declined to raise a waiver argument, citing United States v. Bell, 70 F.3d 495, 496-97 (7th Cir.1995) (challenge to constitutionality of statute of conviction is, in certain circumstances, jurisdictional claim not waived by guilty plea)."); Bell, 70 F.3d at 496-97 (addressing defendant's challenge to the constitutionality of the underlying statute after recognizing the principle that such a challenge "is a jurisdictional claim which is not waived by the guilty plea"); United States v. Palacios-Casquete, 55 F.3d 557, 561 (11th Cir.1995) ("A guilty plea ... 2004However, the government has expressly declined to raise a waiver argument, citing United States v. Bell, 70 F.3d 495, 496-97 (7th Cir.1995) (challenge to constitutionality of statute of conviction is, in certain circumstances, jurisdictional claim not waived by guilty plea).”); Bell, 70 F.3d at 496-97 (addressing defendant’s challenge to the constitutionality of the underlying statute after recognizing the principle that such a challenge “is a jurisdictional claim which is not waived by the guilty plea”); United States v. Palacios-Casquete, 55 F.3d 557, 561 (11th Cir.1995) (“A guilty plea ...	1	2004–2004
Thompson v. Jackson green utahctapp · 1987 2 sentences 2004If [the defendant] ple[aded] guilty to something which was not a crime, he is not now precluded from raising this jurisdictional defect, which goes `to the very power of the State to bring the defendant into court to answer the charge brought against him.'" (quoting Blackledge, 417 U.S. at 30 , 94 S.Ct. 2098 )); United States v. Hill, 564 F.2d 1179, 1180 (5th Cir.1977) (per curiam) (recognizing that "a guilty plea does not bar an appeal that asserts that... the charge is unconstitutional"); United States v. Tallant, 547 F.2d 1291 , 1295 n. 5 (5th Cir.1977) (recognizing that a claim based upon 2004If [the defendant] ple[aded] guilty to something which was not a crime, he is not now precluded from raising this jurisdictional defect, which goes ‘to the very power of the State to bring the defendant into court to answer the charge brought against him.’ ” (quoting Blackledge, 417 U.S. at 30 , 94 S.Ct. 2098 )); United States v. Hill, 564 F.2d 1179, 1180 (5th Cir.1977) (per cu-riam) (recognizing that “a guilty plea does not bar an appeal that asserts that ... the charge is unconstitutional”); United States v. Tallant, 547 F.2d 1291 , 1295 n. 5 (5th Cir. 1977) (recognizing that a claim based u	1	2004–2004
United States v. Aston Winter, Howard Charles Towne, Stanton Davis and William Michael Parks green ca5 · 1975 2 sentences 2004If [the defendant] ple[aded] guilty to something which was not a crime, he is not now precluded from raising this jurisdictional defect, which goes `to the very power of the State to bring the defendant into court to answer the charge brought against him.'" (quoting Blackledge, 417 U.S. at 30 , 94 S.Ct. 2098 )); United States v. Hill, 564 F.2d 1179, 1180 (5th Cir.1977) (per curiam) (recognizing that "a guilty plea does not bar an appeal that asserts that... the charge is unconstitutional"); United States v. Tallant, 547 F.2d 1291 , 1295 n. 5 (5th Cir.1977) (recognizing that a claim based upon 2004If [the defendant] ple[aded] guilty to something which was not a crime, he is not now precluded from raising this jurisdictional defect, which goes ‘to the very power of the State to bring the defendant into court to answer the charge brought against him.’ ” (quoting Blackledge, 417 U.S. at 30 , 94 S.Ct. 2098 )); United States v. Hill, 564 F.2d 1179, 1180 (5th Cir.1977) (per cu-riam) (recognizing that “a guilty plea does not bar an appeal that asserts that ... the charge is unconstitutional”); United States v. Tallant, 547 F.2d 1291 , 1295 n. 5 (5th Cir. 1977) (recognizing that a claim based u	1	2004–2004
Blackledge v. Perry green scotus · 1974 2 sentences 2004If [the defendant] ple[aded] guilty to something which was not a crime, he is not now precluded from raising this jurisdictional defect, which goes `to the very power of the State to bring the defendant into court to answer the charge brought against him.'" (quoting Blackledge, 417 U.S. at 30 , 94 S.Ct. 2098 )); United States v. Hill, 564 F.2d 1179, 1180 (5th Cir.1977) (per curiam) (recognizing that "a guilty plea does not bar an appeal that asserts that... the charge is unconstitutional"); United States v. Tallant, 547 F.2d 1291 , 1295 n. 5 (5th Cir.1977) (recognizing that a claim based upon 2004If [the defendant] ple[aded] guilty to something which was not a crime, he is not now precluded from raising this jurisdictional defect, which goes `to the very power of the State to bring the defendant into court to answer the charge brought against him.'" (quoting Blackledge, 417 U.S. at 30 , 94 S.Ct. 2098 )); United States v. Hill, 564 F.2d 1179, 1180 (5th Cir.1977) (per curiam) (recognizing that "a guilty plea does not bar an appeal that asserts that... the charge is unconstitutional"); United States v. Tallant, 547 F.2d 1291 , 1295 n. 5 (5th Cir.1977) (recognizing that a claim based upon	1	2004–2004
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 95,903 United States of America v. Fred C. Tallant, Sr., and William M. Womack, Jr. green ca5 · 1977 2 sentences 2004If [the defendant] ple[aded] guilty to something which was not a crime, he is not now precluded from raising this jurisdictional defect, which goes `to the very power of the State to bring the defendant into court to answer the charge brought against him.'" (quoting Blackledge, 417 U.S. at 30 , 94 S.Ct. 2098 )); United States v. Hill, 564 F.2d 1179, 1180 (5th Cir.1977) (per curiam) (recognizing that "a guilty plea does not bar an appeal that asserts that... the charge is unconstitutional"); United States v. Tallant, 547 F.2d 1291 , 1295 n. 5 (5th Cir.1977) (recognizing that a claim based upon 2004If [the defendant] ple[aded] guilty to something which was not a crime, he is not now precluded from raising this jurisdictional defect, which goes ‘to the very power of the State to bring the defendant into court to answer the charge brought against him.’ ” (quoting Blackledge, 417 U.S. at 30 , 94 S.Ct. 2098 )); United States v. Hill, 564 F.2d 1179, 1180 (5th Cir.1977) (per cu-riam) (recognizing that “a guilty plea does not bar an appeal that asserts that ... the charge is unconstitutional”); United States v. Tallant, 547 F.2d 1291 , 1295 n. 5 (5th Cir. 1977) (recognizing that a claim based u	1	2004–2004
United States v. Walter Dale Broncheau green ca9 · 1979 2 sentences 2004However, the government has expressly declined to raise a waiver argument, citing United States v. Bell, 70 F.3d 495, 496-97 (7th Cir.1995) (challenge to constitutionality of statute of conviction is, in certain circumstances, jurisdictional claim not waived by guilty plea)."); Bell, 70 F.3d at 496-97 (addressing defendant's challenge to the constitutionality of the underlying statute after recognizing the principle that such a challenge "is a jurisdictional claim which is not waived by the guilty plea"); United States v. Palacios-Casquete, 55 F.3d 557, 561 (11th Cir.1995) ("A guilty plea ... 2004However, the government has expressly declined to raise a waiver argument, citing United States v. Bell, 70 F.3d 495, 496-97 (7th Cir.1995) (challenge to constitutionality of statute of conviction is, in certain circumstances, jurisdictional claim not waived by guilty plea).”); Bell, 70 F.3d at 496-97 (addressing defendant’s challenge to the constitutionality of the underlying statute after recognizing the principle that such a challenge “is a jurisdictional claim which is not waived by the guilty plea”); United States v. Palacios-Casquete, 55 F.3d 557, 561 (11th Cir.1995) (“A guilty plea ...	1	2004–2004
State v. Hackford green utah · 1987 2 sentences 1989Under that standard, which is not as strict as the federal constitutional standard, see Bishop, 753 P.2d at 500 (Zimmerman, J., concurring); Hackford, 737 P.2d at 204 , an error requires reversal only if there is "a reasonable likelihood of a more favorable result” for the accused had the error not occurred. 1989Under that standard, which is not as strict as the federal constitutional standard, see Bishop, 753 P.2d at 500 (Zimmerman, J., concurring); Hackford, 737 P.2d at 204 , an error requires reversal only if there is "a reasonable likelihood of a more favorable result" for the accused had the error not occurred.	1	1989–1989
State v. Knight green utah · 1987 2 sentences 1989E.g., Knight, 734 P.2d at 919 . 1989E.g., Knight, 734 P.2d at 919 .	1	1989–1989
Commonwealth v. Costello green mass · 1876 1 sentence 1899An., 450; Miller v. State, 29 Neb., 437 -440; Epps v. State, 102 Ind., 541 ; Commonwealth v. Castello, 121 Mass., 371 ; People v. Ormsby, 48 Mich., 494 ; Boswell v. State, 20 Grat., 860; Territory v. Gay, 23 Dak., 125 -148; Christ v. People, 3 Colo., 394 ; Bish.	1	1899–1899
Christ v. People neutral colo · 1877 1 sentence 1899An., 450; Miller v. State, 29 Neb., 437 -440; Epps v. State, 102 Ind., 541 ; Commonwealth v. Castello, 121 Mass., 371 ; People v. Ormsby, 48 Mich., 494 ; Boswell v. State, 20 Grat., 860; Territory v. Gay, 23 Dak., 125 -148; Christ v. People, 3 Colo., 394 ; Bish.	1	1899–1899
People v. Ormsby neutral mich · 1882 1 sentence 1899An., 450; Miller v. State, 29 Neb., 437 -440; Epps v. State, 102 Ind., 541 ; Commonwealth v. Castello, 121 Mass., 371 ; People v. Ormsby, 48 Mich., 494 ; Boswell v. State, 20 Grat., 860; Territory v. Gay, 23 Dak., 125 -148; Christ v. People, 3 Colo., 394 ; Bish.	1	1899–1899
Miller v. State green neb · 1890 1 sentence 1899An., 450; Miller v. State, 29 Neb., 437 -440; Epps v. State, 102 Ind., 541 ; Commonwealth v. Castello, 121 Mass., 371 ; People v. Ormsby, 48 Mich., 494 ; Boswell v. State, 20 Grat., 860; Territory v. Gay, 23 Dak., 125 -148; Christ v. People, 3 Colo., 394 ; Bish.	1	1899–1899

Where else courts name it

TX 441 (1876–2025) IL 98 (1898–2025) GA 66 (1900–2021) PA 56 (1897–2024) LA 54 (1959–2022) TN 53 (1992–2020) OH 42 (1876–2023) AL 39 (1881–2023) CA 38 (1928–2023) MD 33 (1942–2026) WV 29 (1923–2023) MS 26 (1884–2025) KS 26 (1907–2024) FL 24 (1894–2023) VA 24 (1925–2025) NY 22 (1912–2026) CT 18 (1923–2011) WA 18 (1929–2021) SC 18 (1951–2026) IN 18 (1881–2010) MN 17 (1944–2016) MO 15 (1901–2017) WI 13 (1915–2022) AR 13 (1913–2021) NE 12 (1897–2025) NC 12 (1905–2025) IA 12 (1951–2021) NM 11 (1918–2009) UT 10 (1899–2025) OR 10 (1951–2014) MI 10 (1917–2018) CO 10 (1931–2020) MA 9 (1923–2026) NJ 9 (1950–2019) NV 8 (1967–2020) AK 8 (1970–2007) KY 8 (1922–1985) MT 8 (1955–2025) OK 8 (1926–1982) DC 6 (1972–2003) WY 5 (1983–2001) ND 5 (1921–2000) AZ 4 (1930–1996) RI 4 (1972–1987) PR 4 (1910–1969) VT 3 (1979–2006) HI 2 (1971–1986) DE 2 (1978–1994) ME 2 (1968–2024)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check