defendant requesting instruction (Utah) · Go Syfert
← Utah issues

defendant requesting instruction in Utah

8 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 2013–2021 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.

Followed or applied (5)

CaseFollowedCited
State v. Powellgreen
utah · 2007 · cited in 8 Utah opinions naming this issue, 2013–2021
2 sentences

2021And while a district court must view “the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant requesting the instruction,” see id., a “defendant is not entitled to a [lesser-included-offense] jury instruction” if the request “is based on sheer speculation,” id. ¶ 33, “that the jury could have potentially disbelieved the witnesses’ testimony,” id. ¶ 32.

2020And we view the evidence “in the light most favorable to the defendant requesting the instruction.” Powell, 2007 UT 9, ¶ 27 . ¶55 The court of appeals carefully analyzed each of Norton’s claims of entitlement to an instruction on a lesser included offense.

18
State v. Bakergreen
utah · 1983 · cited in 4 Utah opinions naming this issue, 2014–2018
2 sentences

2018In so doing, we must determine whether there is "a sufficient quantum of evidence presented to justify sending the question to the jury," Baker , 671 P.2d at 159 , and we view the evidence "in the light most favorable to the defendant requesting the instruction," Powell , 2007 UT 9 , ¶ 27, 154 P.3d 788 .

2015And a weapons expert testified that the gun likely used to kill the victim can be discharged only if ―the trigger is pulled . . . to 90 percent engagement,‖ making it highly unlikely that this ―type of gun . . . may accidentally go off.‖ ¶28 The State argues that Cellmate‘s ―testimony cannot support a lesser included offense instruction because‖ Mr. Reece ―took the stand and repudiated it.‖ According to the State, our obligation to ―view[] the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant requesting the instruction‖27 requires us ―to take Mr. Reece at his word and discount [Cellmate‘s]

14
United States v. Anthony G. Mooregreen
ca10 · 1997 · cited in 1 Utah opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
2 sentences

2015And a weapons expert testified that the gun likely used to kill the victim can be discharged only if ―the trigger is pulled . . . to 90 percent engagement,‖ making it highly unlikely that this ―type of gun . . . may accidentally go off.‖ ¶28 The State argues that Cellmate‘s ―testimony cannot support a lesser included offense instruction because‖ Mr. Reece ―took the stand and repudiated it.‖ According to the State, our obligation to ―view[] the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant requesting the instruction‖27 requires us ―to take Mr. Reece at his word and discount [Cellmate‘s]

2015And a weapons expert testified that the gun likely used to kill the victim can be discharged only if ―the trigger is pulled . . . to 90 percent engagement,‖ making it highly unlikely that this ―type of gun . . . may accidentally go off.‖ ¶28 The State argues that Cellmate‘s ―testimony cannot support a lesser included offense instruction because‖ Mr. Reece ―took the stand and repudiated it.‖ According to the State, our obligation to ―view[] the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant requesting the instruction‖27 requires us ―to take Mr. Reece at his word and discount [Cellmate‘s]

11
United States v. James L. Crowdergreen
cadc · 1976 · cited in 1 Utah opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
1 sentence

2015And a weapons expert testified that the gun likely used to kill the victim can be discharged only if ―the trigger is pulled . . . to 90 percent engagement,‖ making it highly unlikely that this ―type of gun . . . may accidentally go off.‖ ¶28 The State argues that Cellmate‘s ―testimony cannot support a lesser included offense instruction because‖ Mr. Reece ―took the stand and repudiated it.‖ According to the State, our obligation to ―view[] the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant requesting the instruction‖27 requires us ―to take Mr. Reece at his word and discount [Cellmate‘s]

11
Baldwin v. Vantage Corp.green
utah · 1984 · cited in 1 Utah opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
1 sentence

2015And a weapons expert testified that the gun likely used to kill the victim can be discharged only if ―the trigger is pulled . . . to 90 percent engagement,‖ making it highly unlikely that this ―type of gun . . . may accidentally go off.‖ ¶28 The State argues that Cellmate‘s ―testimony cannot support a lesser included offense instruction because‖ Mr. Reece ―took the stand and repudiated it.‖ According to the State, our obligation to ―view[] the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant requesting the instruction‖27 requires us ―to take Mr. Reece at his word and discount [Cellmate‘s]

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (10)

CaseCitedYears
State v. Garcia-Vargas Jr. green
utahctapp · 2012
2 sentences

2015And a weapons expert testified that the gun likely used to kill the victim can be discharged only if ―the trigger is pulled . . . to 90 percent engagement,‖ making it highly unlikely that this ―type of gun . . . may accidentally go off.‖ ¶28 The State argues that Cellmate‘s ―testimony cannot support a lesser included offense instruction because‖ Mr. Reece ―took the stand and repudiated it.‖ According to the State, our obligation to ―view[] the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant requesting the instruction‖27 requires us ―to take Mr. Reece at his word and discount [Cellmate‘s]

2015And a weapons expert testified that the gun likely used to kill the victim can be discharged only if ―the trigger is pulled . . . to 90 percent engagement,‖ making it highly unlikely that this ―type of gun . . . may accidentally go off.‖ ¶28 The State argues that Cellmate‘s ―testimony cannot support a lesser included offense instruction because‖ Mr. Reece ―took the stand and repudiated it.‖ According to the State, our obligation to ―view[] the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant requesting the instruction‖27 requires us ―to take Mr. Reece at his word and discount [Cellmate‘s]

32014–2015
State v. Maughan green
utah · 2013
2 sentences

2015And a weapons expert testified that the gun likely used to kill the victim can be discharged only if ―the trigger is pulled . . . to 90 percent engagement,‖ making it highly unlikely that this ―type of gun . . . may accidentally go off.‖ ¶28 The State argues that Cellmate‘s ―testimony cannot support a lesser included offense instruction because‖ Mr. Reece ―took the stand and repudiated it.‖ According to the State, our obligation to ―view[] the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant requesting the instruction‖27 requires us ―to take Mr. Reece at his word and discount [Cellmate‘s]

2015And a weapons expert testified that the gun likely used to kill the victim can be discharged only if ―the trigger is pulled . . . to 90 percent engagement,‖ making it highly unlikely that this ―type of gun . . . may accidentally go off.‖ ¶28 The State argues that Cellmate‘s ―testimony cannot support a lesser included offense instruction because‖ Mr. Reece ―took the stand and repudiated it.‖ According to the State, our obligation to ―view[] the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant requesting the instruction‖27 requires us ―to take Mr. Reece at his word and discount [Cellmate‘s]

12015–2015
State v. Reece green
utah · 2015
1 sentence

2015And a weapons expert testified that the gun likely used to kill the victim can be discharged only if ―the trigger is pulled . . . to 90 percent engagement,‖ making it highly unlikely that this ―type of gun . . . may accidentally go off.‖ ¶28 The State argues that Cellmate‘s ―testimony cannot support a lesser included offense instruction because‖ Mr. Reece ―took the stand and repudiated it.‖ According to the State, our obligation to ―view[] the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant requesting the instruction‖27 requires us ―to take Mr. Reece at his word and discount [Cellmate‘s]

12015–2015
Board of Professional Responsibility, Wyoming State Bar v. Clay B. Jenkins, Wsb 5-2249 neutral
wyo · 2013
1 sentence

2014Furthermore, Berriel's characterization of trial courts as "factfin-ders," 2018 UT 19, 19 , 299 P.3d 1183 , casts doubt on the traditional rule that when considering a lesser-included-offense instruction "a trial court does not weigh the evidence," but "views the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant requesting the instruction." Powell, 2007 UT 9, 127 , 154 P.3d 788 .

12014–2014
Duncan v. Fourth Judicial District Court green
utah · 2007
1 sentence

2014A defendant's version of the evidence need not be the only reasonable interpretation of the evidence, State v. Shumway, 2002 UT 124, ¶13 , 63 P.3d 94 , so long as "a jury could choose to believe {[the dlefendant's version," State v. Spillers, 2007 UT 18, 120 , 152 P.8d (815.

12014–2014
State v. Ring green
utah · 2018
1 sentence

2014Furthermore, Berriel's characterization of trial courts as "factfin-ders," 2018 UT 19, 19 , 299 P.3d 1183 , casts doubt on the traditional rule that when considering a lesser-included-offense instruction "a trial court does not weigh the evidence," but "views the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant requesting the instruction." Powell, 2007 UT 9, 127 , 154 P.3d 788 .

12014–2014
State v. Kruger green
utah · 2000
2 sentences

2014Instead, the district court "must ... determine 'whether there is a sufficient quantum of evidence to send [the] issue to the jury.'" Id. (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Kruger, 2000 UT 60, ¶ 14 , 6 P.3d 1116 ).

2014Instead, the district court "must ... determine 'whether there is a sufficient quantum of evidence to send [the] issue to the jury.'" Id. (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Kruger, 2000 UT 60, ¶ 14 , 6 P.3d 1116 ).

12014–2014
State v. Shumway green
utah · 2002
2 sentences

2014A defendant’s version of the evidence need not be the only reasonable interpretation of the evidence, State v. Shumway, 2002 UT 124, ¶ 13 , 63 P.3d 94 , so long as ‚a jury could choose to believe [the d]efendant’s version,‛ State v. Spillers, 2007 UT 13, ¶ 20 , 152 P.3d 315 .

2014A defendant’s version of the evidence need not be the only reasonable interpretation of the evidence, State v. Shumway, 2002 UT 124, ¶ 13 , 63 P.3d 94 , so long as ‚a jury could choose to believe [the d]efendant’s version,‛ State v. Spillers, 2007 UT 13, ¶ 20 , 152 P.3d 315 .

12014–2014
State v. Berriel green
utah · 2013
1 sentence

2014Furthermore, Berriel’s characterization of trial courts as ‚factfinders,‛ 2013 UT 19 , ¶ 9, casts doubt on the traditional rule that when considering a lesser-included-offense instruction ‚a trial court does not weigh the evidence,‛ but ‚views the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant requesting the instruction.‛ Powell, 2007 UT 9, ¶ 27 .

12014–2014
State v. Spillers green
utah · 2007
2 sentences

2014A defendant’s version of the evidence need not be the only reasonable interpretation of the evidence, State v. Shumway, 2002 UT 124, ¶ 13 , 63 P.3d 94 , so long as ‚a jury could choose to believe [the d]efendant’s version,‛ State v. Spillers, 2007 UT 13, ¶ 20 , 152 P.3d 315 .

2014A defendant’s version of the evidence need not be the only reasonable interpretation of the evidence, State v. Shumway, 2002 UT 124, ¶ 13 , 63 P.3d 94 , so long as ‚a jury could choose to believe [the d]efendant’s version,‛ State v. Spillers, 2007 UT 13, ¶ 20 , 152 P.3d 315 .

12014–2014

Statutes the citing opinions construe

UT § Utah Code § 76-2-103 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

UT 8 (2013–2021) TX 3 (2003–2007) CA 2 (1978–2025)

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