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.
9 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2026 1 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. Bakergreen2 sentences2007We disagree. 112 In State v. Baker, 671 P.2d 152 (Utah 1983), this court held that when the defense requests an instruction on a lesser included offense, the instruction "must be given if (1) the statutory elements of greater and lesser included offenses overlap ... and (1) the evidence provides a rational basis for a verdict acquitting the defendant of the offense charged and convicting him of the included offense." State v. Hansen, 734 P.2d 421, 424 (Utah 1986) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted) (discussing the Baker test for lesser included offense instructions); see Utah Code 2007We disagree. 112 In State v. Baker, 671 P.2d 152 (Utah 1983), this court held that when the defense requests an instruction on a lesser included offense, the instruction "must be given if (1) the statutory elements of greater and lesser included offenses overlap ... and (1) the evidence provides a rational basis for a verdict acquitting the defendant of the offense charged and convicting him of the included offense." State v. Hansen, 734 P.2d 421, 424 (Utah 1986) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted) (discussing the Baker test for lesser included offense instructions); see Utah Code | 2 | 6 |
State v. Hansengreen2 sentences2007We disagree. 112 In State v. Baker, 671 P.2d 152 (Utah 1983), this court held that when the defense requests an instruction on a lesser included offense, the instruction "must be given if (1) the statutory elements of greater and lesser included offenses overlap ... and (1) the evidence provides a rational basis for a verdict acquitting the defendant of the offense charged and convicting him of the included offense." State v. Hansen, 734 P.2d 421, 424 (Utah 1986) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted) (discussing the Baker test for lesser included offense instructions); see Utah Code 2007We disagree. 112 In State v. Baker, 671 P.2d 152 (Utah 1983), this court held that when the defense requests an instruction on a lesser included offense, the instruction "must be given if (1) the statutory elements of greater and lesser included offenses overlap ... and (1) the evidence provides a rational basis for a verdict acquitting the defendant of the offense charged and convicting him of the included offense." State v. Hansen, 734 P.2d 421, 424 (Utah 1986) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted) (discussing the Baker test for lesser included offense instructions); see Utah Code | 2 | 2 |
State v. Crickgreen2 sentences2005In other words, “[w]hen the evidence is ambiguous and therefore susceptible to alternative interpretations, and one alternative would permit acquittal of the greater offense and conviction of the lesser, a jury question exists and the court must give a lesser included offense instruction at the request of the defendant.” Crick, 675 P.2d at 532 (quoting Baker, 671 P.2d at 159 ). ¶ 16 The State concedes that the first prong of the Baker test is satisfied as the elements of extreme-emotional-distress manslaughter and imperfect-legal-justification manslaughter overlap with the elements of murder. 2005In other words, “[w]hen the evidence is ambiguous and therefore susceptible to alternative interpretations, and one alternative would permit acquittal of the greater offense and conviction of the lesser, a jury question exists and the court must give a lesser included offense instruction at the request of the defendant.” Crick, 675 P.2d at 532 (quoting Baker, 671 P.2d at 159 ). ¶ 16 The State concedes that the first prong of the Baker test is satisfied as the elements of extreme-emotional-distress manslaughter and imperfect-legal-justification manslaughter overlap with the elements of murder. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Trevinogreen1 sentence2026See State v. Trevino, 903 P.2d 447 , 453–54 (Wash. 1995). 5 ¶16 For these reasons, a mouth check is an essential step in ensuring that a suspect’s mouth is clear of anything that might taint the results of a breath alcohol test.6 The district court therefore erred in denying the Baker motion. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Vialpandogreen2 sentences2026See State v. Vialpando, 2004 UT App 95, ¶ 13 , 89 P.3d 209 (“A trial court’s determination that there was a proper foundation for the 2. 2026See State v. Vialpando, 2004 UT App 95, ¶ 13 , 89 P.3d 209 (“A trial court’s determination that there was a proper foundation for the 2. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Knightgreen2 sentences2011See State v. Knight, 2003 UT App 354, ¶ 10 , 79 P.3d 969 ("Here, because the State concedes that the elements of sexual abuse of a child and sexual battery overlap, we assume that the first prong of the Baker analysis is satisfied."). 4 . 2011See State v. Knight, 2003 UT App 354, ¶ 10 , 79 P.3d 969 ("Here, because the State concedes that the elements of sexual abuse of a child and sexual battery overlap, we assume that the first prong of the Baker analysis is satisfied."). 4 . | 1 | 1 |
White v. Stategreen2 sentences2006See 795 P.2d at 650 . 2006See 795 P.2d at 650 . | 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. Green
green
2 sentences2026ISSUE AND STANDARDS OF REVIEW ¶9 On appeal, Montgomery challenges the denial of the Baker motion that sought to exclude the results of the breath alcohol test based on Officer’s failure to perform an initial mouth check. 2 Generally, we review “a district court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence” for an “abuse of discretion.” State v. Green, 2023 UT 10, ¶ 43 , 532 P.3d 930 (quotation simplified). 2026ISSUE AND STANDARDS OF REVIEW ¶9 On appeal, Montgomery challenges the denial of the Baker motion that sought to exclude the results of the breath alcohol test based on Officer’s failure to perform an initial mouth check. 2 Generally, we review “a district court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence” for an “abuse of discretion.” State v. Green, 2023 UT 10, ¶ 43 , 532 P.3d 930 (quotation simplified). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Baker
green
2 sentences2026Montgomery’s breath alcohol level was measured at 0.21— well above the 0.05 legal threshold. ¶4 After being bound over for trial, Montgomery filed a motion in limine to exclude the results of the breath alcohol test on the rationale advanced in State v. Baker, 355 P.2d 806 (Wash. 1960) (en banc) (the Baker motion). 1 He argued that the test results were unreliable because (1) Officer did not check his mouth at the beginning of the required observation period immediately 1. 2026We agree and hold that a mouth check is a foundational requirement for the admissibility of breath alcohol tests. ¶11 In Utah, the admissibility of a breath alcohol test result is contingent on the satisfaction of three foundational requirements originally derived from State v. Baker, 355 P.2d 806 (Wash. 1960) (en banc). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
cluster 10860138
neutral
2 sentences2026Because we do not reach this issue on appeal, see infra note 2, we do not recount the facts relevant to that issue. 20241296-CA 2 2026 UT App 77 State v. Montgomery preceding the test and (2) Officer did not properly observe him during the observation period. ¶5 Because Officer failed to appear at the first scheduled evidentiary hearing on the Baker motion, the district court continued the hearing until the following week. 2026But because we conclude that the results of the breath alcohol test were inadmissible due to Officer’s failure to perform a mouth check and reverse on that ground, we have no need to address these other issues. 20241296-CA 4 2026 UT App 77 State v. Montgomery admission of evidence will not be overturned unless there is a showing of an abuse of discretion.”) (quotation simplified). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Baker v. Western Surety Co.
green
2 sentences2006If, however, the trial court is inclined to grant the motion, counsel should obtain a brief memorandum to that effect from the trial court, and request an order of remand from the appellate court so that the trial, court can enter an order. 757 P.2d at 880 . ¶21 Thus, the court in White acknowledged that although it generally adheres to the rule that a pending appeal divests the trial court of its jurisdiction, it adopted the Baker rule as an exception to this general rule. 2006If, however, the trial court is inclined to grant the motion, counsel should obtain a brief memorandum to that effect from the trial court, and request an order of remand from the appellate court so that the trial, court can enter an order. 757 P.2d at 880 . ¶21 Thus, the court in White acknowledged that although it generally adheres to the rule that a pending appeal divests the trial court of its jurisdiction, it adopted the Baker rule as an exception to this general rule. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Norton
green
2 sentences1986This argument is premised on the construction we gave section 76-5-203(1)(d) in State v. Norton, 675 P.2d 577 (Utah 1983). 1986This argument is premised on the construction we gave section 76-5-203(1)(d) in State v. Norton, 675 P.2d 577 (Utah 1983). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.