challenged jury instruction in Utah

2013Thus, even if the jury instruction was legally incorrect, we will reverse "only if [our] confidence in the jury's verdiet is undermined." Wilson v. IHC Hosps., Inc., 2012 UT 43, ¶ 24 , 289 P.3d 369 (alteration in original) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 136 The challenged jury instruction (Instruction 15) reads, "Whether an assignment of a contract includes an assumption of liabilities depends on the terms of the assignment and the parties' intent." Blosch argues that Instruction 15 fails to instruct the jury that "an assignment does not relieve the assignor of duties and obl

2013Thus, even if the jury instruction was legally incorrect, we will reverse "only if [our] confidence in the jury's verdiet is undermined." Wilson v. IHC Hosps., Inc., 2012 UT 43, ¶ 24 , 289 P.3d 369 (alteration in original) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 136 The challenged jury instruction (Instruction 15) reads, "Whether an assignment of a contract includes an assumption of liabilities depends on the terms of the assignment and the parties' intent." Blosch argues that Instruction 15 fails to instruct the jury that "an assignment does not relieve the assignor of duties and obl

2012As our supreme court stated in Hanks v. Christensen, 11 UT 2d 8, 354 P.2d 564 (Utah 1960), "There being no negligence upon which to predicate liability, the question of the extent of proximate causation of damage is not here confronted." Id. at 13, 354 P.2d 564 . 39 In short, the jury's finding that SPX and HOJ were not negligent breaks any causal connection between the challenged jury instruction and the verdict of no cause of action.

2012As our supreme court stated in Hanks v. Christensen, 11 UT 2d 8, 354 P.2d 564 (Utah 1960), "There being no negligence upon which to predicate liability, the question of the extent of proximate causation of damage is not here confronted." Id. at 13, 354 P.2d 564 . 39 In short, the jury's finding that SPX and HOJ were not negligent breaks any causal connection between the challenged jury instruction and the verdict of no cause of action.

2009The instruction is an accurate statement of the law, and we reject Marchet's claim that it was erroneous. 123 Furthermore, "[wle review a challenged jury instruction in context with all other jury instructions provided to the jury." Normandeau v. Hanson Equip., Inc., 2007 UT App 382 , ¶ 16, 174 P.3d 1 , rev'd on other grounds, 2009 UT 44 .

2009The instruction is an accurate statement of the law, and we reject Marchet's claim that it was erroneous. 123 Furthermore, "[wle review a challenged jury instruction in context with all other jury instructions provided to the jury." Normandeau v. Hanson Equip., Inc., 2007 UT App 382 , ¶ 16, 174 P.3d 1 , rev'd on other grounds, 2009 UT 44 .

2009The instruction is an accurate statement of the law, and we reject Marchet's claim that it was erroneous. 123 Furthermore, "[wle review a challenged jury instruction in context with all other jury instructions provided to the jury." Normandeau v. Hanson Equip., Inc., 2007 UT App 382 , ¶ 16, 174 P.3d 1 , rev'd on other grounds, 2009 UT 44 .

2009Where "the jury instructions as a whole fairly instruct the jury on the applicable law, reversible error does not arise merely because one jury instruction, standing alone, is not as accurate as it might have been." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted); see also State v. Harper, 2006 UT App 178, ¶ 14 , 136 P.3d 1261 ("[]f taken as a whole [the jury instructions] fairly instruct the jury on the law applicable to the case, the fact that one of the instructions, standing alone, is not as accurate as it might have been is not reversible error." (first alteration in original) (internal quotation

2003Second, the error must be of sufficient magnitude that it affects the substantial rights of a party." Id. at 122 . 1 41 Subsequently, we determined that the plain error analysis applied to a challenged jury instruction that incorrectly informed the jury of the mens rea for depraved indifference murder.

1996In State v. Medina, 738 P.2d 1021 (Utah 1987), we declined to review a challenged jury instruction under the manifest error exception to rule 19(e) even though, in retrospect, the instruction seemed ill-advised.

1996We noted that the defendant’s counsel consciously chose not to object and “affirmatively led the trial court to believe that there was nothing wrong with the instruction.” Id. at 1023 .

1985The standard established in Sandstrom is “whether the challenged jury instruction had the effect of relieving the State of the burden of proof enunciated in [In re] Winship [ 397 U.S. 358 , 90 S.Ct. 1068 , 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970)]....” Id. at 521, 99 S.Ct. at 2458.

1985The standard established in Sandstrom is “whether the challenged jury instruction had the effect of relieving the State of the burden of proof enunciated in [In re] Winship [ 397 U.S. 358 , 90 S.Ct. 1068 , 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970)]....” Id. at 521, 99 S.Ct. at 2458.