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.
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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Hamiltongreen2 sentences2018We 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-Casquetegreen2 sentences2004However, 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 Rosegreen2 sentences2004If [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-Appelleesgreen2 sentences2004If [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 Hillgreen2 sentences2004If [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. Kenneth L. Bellgreen2 sentences2004However, 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 Montillagreen2 sentences2004However, 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 Kincheloegreen2 sentences2004However, 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 |
State v. Bishopgreen2 sentences1989Under 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 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Lopez
green
2 sentences2021ADMISSION 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
2 sentences2018Bailey , 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). 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). | 2 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Eddington
green
1 sentence2023Even 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 |
State v. Verde
red
2 sentences2018Bailey , 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 |
Bailey v. Bayles
green
2 sentences2018Bailey , 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
1 sentence2017We 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
2 sentences2005Id. at 315-16 , 94 S.Ct. 1105 . 2005Id. at 315-16 , 94 S.Ct. 1105 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
United States v. Aston Winter, Howard Charles Towne, Stanton Davis and William Michael Parks
green
2 sentences2004If [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 |
Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 95,903 United States of America v. Fred C. Tallant, Sr., and William M. Womack, Jr.
green
2 sentences2004If [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
2 sentences2004However, 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 |
The United States of America v. Eddie Barboa
green
2 sentences2004However, 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
2 sentences2004If [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
2 sentences2004If [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 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. Maria Yanibe Montilla
green
2 sentences2004However, 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
2 sentences1989Under 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
2 sentences1989E.g., Knight, 734 P.2d at 919 . 1989E.g., Knight, 734 P.2d at 919 . | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Commonwealth v. Costello
green
1 sentence1899An., 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
1 sentence1899An., 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
1 sentence1899An., 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
1 sentence1899An., 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 |
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.