finding of plain error in Utah

1995The requirements for determining whether plain error has occurred were articulated in State v. Eldredge, 773 P.2d 29 (Utah), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 814 , 110 S.Ct. 62 , 107 L.Ed.2d 29 (1989), as follows: The first requirement for a finding of plain error is that the error be “plain,” i.e., from our examination of the record, we must be able to say that it should have been obvious to a trial court that it was committing error....

1994State v. Ellifritz, 835 P.2d 170, 174 (Utah App.1992). 3 The requirements for determining whether plain error has occurred were articulated in State v. Eldredge, 773 P.2d 29 (Utah 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 814 , 110 S.Ct. 62 , 107 L.Ed.2d 29 (1989), as follows: The first requirement for a finding of plain error is that the error be “plain,” i.e., from our examination of the record, we must be able to say that it should have been obvious to a trial court that it was committing error....

1995The requirements for determining whether plain error has occurred were articulated in State v. Eldredge, 773 P.2d 29 (Utah), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 814 , 110 S.Ct. 62 , 107 L.Ed.2d 29 (1989), as follows: The first requirement for a finding of plain error is that the error be “plain,” i.e., from our examination of the record, we must be able to say that it should have been obvious to a trial court that it was committing error....

1994State v. Ellifritz, 835 P.2d 170, 174 (Utah App.1992). 3 The requirements for determining whether plain error has occurred were articulated in State v. Eldredge, 773 P.2d 29 (Utah 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 814 , 110 S.Ct. 62 , 107 L.Ed.2d 29 (1989), as follows: The first requirement for a finding of plain error is that the error be “plain,” i.e., from our examination of the record, we must be able to say that it should have been obvious to a trial court that it was committing error....

2012See generally State v. Dunn, 850 P.2d 1201, 1225 (Utah 1993) ("[I]f the challenged act or omission might be considered sound trial strategy, we will not find that it demonstrates inadequacy of counsel.").

2012See generally State v. Dunn, 850 P.2d 1201, 1225 (Utah 1993) (“[I]f the challenged act or omission might be considered sound trial strategy, we will not find that it demonstrates inadequacy of counsel.”).

1995State v. Menzies, 889 P.2d 393, 403 (Utah 1994) (citing State v. Dunn, 850 P.2d 1201, 1208 (Utah 1993)).

1994State v. Ellifritz, 835 P.2d 170, 174 (Utah App.1992). 3 The requirements for determining whether plain error has occurred were articulated in State v. Eldredge, 773 P.2d 29 (Utah 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 814 , 110 S.Ct. 62 , 107 L.Ed.2d 29 (1989), as follows: The first requirement for a finding of plain error is that the error be “plain,” i.e., from our examination of the record, we must be able to say that it should have been obvious to a trial court that it was committing error....

1992However, he claims they are reviewable under Utah R.Evid. 103(d) as “plain error.” See State v. Whittle, 780 P.2d 819, 821 (Utah 1989) (“[ajbsent a timely objection, we will review an alleged error ... only if it constitutes ‘plain error’.”) 9 ; State v. Archambeau, 820 P.2d 920, 922 (Utah App.1991) (under Rule 103(d), “[a]n appellate court may address a constitutional issue for the first time on appeal if ... the trial court committed ‘plain error’ ”). 10 In State v. Eldredge, 773 P.2d 29 (Utah), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 814 , 110 S.Ct. 62 , 107 L.Ed.2d 29 (1989), the Utah Supreme Court recogni

1992However, he claims they are reviewable under Utah R.Evid. 103(d) as “plain error.” See State v. Whittle, 780 P.2d 819, 821 (Utah 1989) (“[ajbsent a timely objection, we will review an alleged error ... only if it constitutes ‘plain error’.”) 9 ; State v. Archambeau, 820 P.2d 920, 922 (Utah App.1991) (under Rule 103(d), “[a]n appellate court may address a constitutional issue for the first time on appeal if ... the trial court committed ‘plain error’ ”). 10 In State v. Eldredge, 773 P.2d 29 (Utah), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 814 , 110 S.Ct. 62 , 107 L.Ed.2d 29 (1989), the Utah Supreme Court recogni

1989The second and somewhat interrelated requirement for a finding of plain error is that the error affect the substantial rights of the accused, i.e., that the error be harmful. 8 See State v. Bullock, 699 P.2d 753, 756 (Utah 1985); State v. Lesley, 672 P.2d 79, 81-82 (Utah 1983); State v. Gardunio, 652 P.2d 1342, 1344 (Utah 1982) (per curiam); State v. Poe, 21 Utah 2d at 117-18 , 441 P.2d at 515 ; State v. Cobo, 90 Utah at 102 , 60 P.2d at 958 . 9 We first address the question of the error’s plainness.

1989The second and somewhat interrelated requirement for a finding of plain error is that the error affect the substantial rights of the accused, i.e., that the error be harmful. [8] See State v. Bullock, 699 P.2d 753, 756 (Utah 1985); State v. Lesley, 672 P.2d 79, 81-82 (Utah 1983); State v. Gardunio, 652 P.2d 1342, 1344 (Utah 1982) (per curiam); State v. Poe, 21 Utah 2d at 117-18 , 441 P.2d at 515 ; State v. Cobo, 90 Utah at 102 , 60 P.2d at 958 . [9] We first address the question of the error's plainness.

1989The second and somewhat interrelated requirement for a finding of plain error is that the error affect the substantial rights of the accused, i.e., that the error be harmful. 8 See State v. Bullock, 699 P.2d 753, 756 (Utah 1985); State v. Lesley, 672 P.2d 79, 81-82 (Utah 1983); State v. Gardunio, 652 P.2d 1342, 1344 (Utah 1982) (per curiam); State v. Poe, 21 Utah 2d at 117-18 , 441 P.2d at 515 ; State v. Cobo, 90 Utah at 102 , 60 P.2d at 958 . 9 We first address the question of the error’s plainness.

1989The second and somewhat interrelated requirement for a finding of plain error is that the error affect the substantial rights of the accused, i.e., that the error be harmful. [8] See State v. Bullock, 699 P.2d 753, 756 (Utah 1985); State v. Lesley, 672 P.2d 79, 81-82 (Utah 1983); State v. Gardunio, 652 P.2d 1342, 1344 (Utah 1982) (per curiam); State v. Poe, 21 Utah 2d at 117-18 , 441 P.2d at 515 ; State v. Cobo, 90 Utah at 102 , 60 P.2d at 958 . [9] We first address the question of the error's plainness.

1989See State v. Poe, 21 Utah 2d 113, 117-18 , 441 P.2d 512, 514-15 (1968), appeal after remand, 24 Utah 2d 355 , 471 P.2d 870 (1970); State v. Cobo, 90 Utah 89, 102 , 60 P.2d 952, 958 (1936); cf. State v. McCardell, 652 P.2d at 947 (incorrect objection did not bring error to trial court’s attention; not plain error under former rule 4).

1989See State v. Poe, 21 Utah 2d 113, 117-18 , 441 P.2d 512, 514-15 (1968), appeal after remand, 24 Utah 2d 355 , 471 P.2d 870 (1970); State v. Cobo, 90 Utah 89, 102 , 60 P.2d 952, 958 (1936); cf. State v. McCardell, 652 P.2d at 947 (incorrect objection did not bring error to trial court's attention; not plain error under former rule 4).

1989The second and somewhat interrelated requirement for a finding of plain error is that the error affect the substantial rights of the accused, i.e., that the error be harmful. 8 See State v. Bullock, 699 P.2d 753, 756 (Utah 1985); State v. Lesley, 672 P.2d 79, 81-82 (Utah 1983); State v. Gardunio, 652 P.2d 1342, 1344 (Utah 1982) (per curiam); State v. Poe, 21 Utah 2d at 117-18 , 441 P.2d at 515 ; State v. Cobo, 90 Utah at 102 , 60 P.2d at 958 . 9 We first address the question of the error’s plainness.

1989The second and somewhat interrelated requirement for a finding of plain error is that the error affect the substantial rights of the accused, i.e., that the error be harmful. [8] See State v. Bullock, 699 P.2d 753, 756 (Utah 1985); State v. Lesley, 672 P.2d 79, 81-82 (Utah 1983); State v. Gardunio, 652 P.2d 1342, 1344 (Utah 1982) (per curiam); State v. Poe, 21 Utah 2d at 117-18 , 441 P.2d at 515 ; State v. Cobo, 90 Utah at 102 , 60 P.2d at 958 . [9] We first address the question of the error's plainness.

1989See State v. Poe, 21 Utah 2d 113, 117-18 , 441 P.2d 512, 514-15 (1968), appeal after remand, 24 Utah 2d 355 , 471 P.2d 870 (1970); State v. Cobo, 90 Utah 89, 102 , 60 P.2d 952, 958 (1936); cf. State v. McCardell, 652 P.2d at 947 (incorrect objection did not bring error to trial court's attention; not plain error under former rule 4).

1989See State v. Poe, 21 Utah 2d 113, 117-18 , 441 P.2d 512, 514-15 (1968), appeal after remand, 24 Utah 2d 355 , 471 P.2d 870 (1970); State v. Cobo, 90 Utah 89, 102 , 60 P.2d 952, 958 (1936); cf. State v. McCardell, 652 P.2d at 947 (incorrect objection did not bring error to trial court's attention; not plain error under former rule 4).

1989The second and somewhat interrelated requirement for a finding of plain error is that the error affect the substantial rights of the accused, i.e., that the error be harmful. [8] See State v. Bullock, 699 P.2d 753, 756 (Utah 1985); State v. Lesley, 672 P.2d 79, 81-82 (Utah 1983); State v. Gardunio, 652 P.2d 1342, 1344 (Utah 1982) (per curiam); State v. Poe, 21 Utah 2d at 117-18 , 441 P.2d at 515 ; State v. Cobo, 90 Utah at 102 , 60 P.2d at 958 . [9] We first address the question of the error's plainness.

1989The second and somewhat interrelated requirement for a finding of plain error is that the error affect the substantial rights of the accused, i.e., that the error be harmful. [8] See State v. Bullock, 699 P.2d 753, 756 (Utah 1985); State v. Lesley, 672 P.2d 79, 81-82 (Utah 1983); State v. Gardunio, 652 P.2d 1342, 1344 (Utah 1982) (per curiam); State v. Poe, 21 Utah 2d at 117-18 , 441 P.2d at 515 ; State v. Cobo, 90 Utah at 102 , 60 P.2d at 958 . [9] We first address the question of the error's plainness.

1989The second and somewhat interrelated requirement for a finding of plain error is that the error affect the substantial rights of the accused, i.e., that the error be harmful. [8] See State v. Bullock, 699 P.2d 753, 756 (Utah 1985); State v. Lesley, 672 P.2d 79, 81-82 (Utah 1983); State v. Gardunio, 652 P.2d 1342, 1344 (Utah 1982) (per curiam); State v. Poe, 21 Utah 2d at 117-18 , 441 P.2d at 515 ; State v. Cobo, 90 Utah at 102 , 60 P.2d at 958 . [9] We first address the question of the error's plainness.

1989The second and somewhat interrelated requirement for a finding of plain error is that the error affect the substantial rights of the accused, i.e., that the error be harmful. [8] See State v. Bullock, 699 P.2d 753, 756 (Utah 1985); State v. Lesley, 672 P.2d 79, 81-82 (Utah 1983); State v. Gardunio, 652 P.2d 1342, 1344 (Utah 1982) (per curiam); State v. Poe, 21 Utah 2d at 117-18 , 441 P.2d at 515 ; State v. Cobo, 90 Utah at 102 , 60 P.2d at 958 . [9] We first address the question of the error's plainness.