Free, and it takes a minute. A syfert.com account skips the bot checks on search and case pages, keeps your details and plan under the account icon, and comes with an MCP token for Claude, ChatGPT or any MCP-capable assistant, emailed to you with a link to the setup page and always available from the account icon.
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.
8 Utah opinions name it 1 courts 2018–2023 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. Thorntongreen2 sentences2021“And more fundamentally, ‘appellate review of evidentiary decisions’ should only ‘assess whether the district judge made an error in admitting or excluding the evidence in question’ and should thus affirm so long as the trial court made the ‘right decision,’ even if it was for ‘a mistaken reason.’” See State v. Wright, 2021 UT App 7, ¶ 41 , 481 P.3d 479 (quoting State v. Thornton, 2017 UT 9, ¶¶ 51, 53 , 391 P.3d 1016 ). ¶43 Under the correct articulation of the rule 403 standard, we have no trouble concluding that the district court acted within its discretion in excluding the evidence of the 2021“And more fundamentally, ‘appellate review of evidentiary decisions’ should only ‘assess whether the district judge made an error in admitting or excluding the evidence in question’ and should thus affirm so long as the trial court made the ‘right decision,’ even if it was for ‘a mistaken reason.’” See State v. Wright, 2021 UT App 7, ¶ 41 , 481 P.3d 479 (quoting State v. Thornton, 2017 UT 9, ¶¶ 51, 53 , 391 P.3d 1016 ). ¶43 Under the correct articulation of the rule 403 standard, we have no trouble concluding that the district court acted within its discretion in excluding the evidence of the | 3 | 6 |
State v. Wrightgreen2 sentences2023See Wright, 2021 UT App 7, ¶ 41 (explaining that “appellate review of evidentiary decisions should only assess whether the district judge made an error in admitting or excluding the evidence in question and should thus affirm so long as the trial court made the right decision, even if it was for a mistaken reason” (quotation simplified)). 20190918-CA 31 2023 UT App 4 State v. Graydon substantially “outweighed by a danger of . . . unfair prejudice.” Utah R. 2021“And more fundamentally, ‘appellate review of evidentiary decisions’ should only ‘assess whether the district judge made an error in admitting or excluding the evidence in question’ and should thus affirm so long as the trial court made the ‘right decision,’ even if it was for ‘a mistaken reason.’” See State v. Wright, 2021 UT App 7, ¶ 41 , 481 P.3d 479 (quoting State v. Thornton, 2017 UT 9, ¶¶ 51, 53 , 391 P.3d 1016 ). ¶43 Under the correct articulation of the rule 403 standard, we have no trouble concluding that the district court acted within its discretion in excluding the evidence of the | 1 | 2 |
State v. Graydongreen1 sentence2023See Wright, 2021 UT App 7, ¶ 41 (explaining that “appellate review of evidentiary decisions should only assess whether the district judge made an error in admitting or excluding the evidence in question and should thus affirm so long as the trial court made the right decision, even if it was for a mistaken reason” (quotation simplified)). 20190918-CA 31 2023 UT App 4 State v. Graydon substantially “outweighed by a danger of . . . unfair prejudice.” Utah R. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cuttlergreen1 sentence2023Evid. 403. ¶75 In our view, the court’s decision was not “beyond the limits of reasonability.” Cuttler, 2015 UT 95, ¶ 12 (quotation simplified). | 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. Reece
green
2 sentences2018We review a district court's decision to admit evidence under rule 404(b) for abuse of discretion, State v. Reece , 2015 UT 45 , ¶ 17, 349 P.3d 712 , and assess "whether the district judge made an error in admitting or excluding the evidence in question," State v. Thornton , 2017 UT 9 , ¶ 53, 391 P.3d 1016 (emphasis omitted). 2018We review a district court's decision to admit evidence under rule 404(b) for abuse of discretion, State v. Reece , 2015 UT 45 , ¶ 17, 349 P.3d 712 , and assess "whether the district judge made an error in admitting or excluding the evidence in question," State v. Thornton , 2017 UT 9 , ¶ 53, 391 P.3d 1016 (emphasis omitted). | 3 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Lujan
green
1 sentence2021Applying rule 403 to an eyewitness identification invites a district court to “tak[e] account of both . . . ‘estimator variables’ and ‘system variables’” to “assess whether such variables have undermined the reliability of a given eyewitness account.” See Lujan, 2020 UT 5 , ¶¶ 34–38, 41, 44. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Von Niederhausern
green
2 sentences2018"Said another way, we no longer focus on the path the [district] court followed in reaching its conclusion, but review only the conclusion itself." State v. Von Niederhausern , 2018 UT App 149 , ¶ 14, 427 P.3d 1277 . 2018"Said another way, we no longer focus on the path the [district] court followed in reaching its conclusion, but review only the conclusion itself." State v. Von Niederhausern , 2018 UT App 149 , ¶ 14, 427 P.3d 1277 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Lucero
green
2 sentences2018And the judge who does so will be better-positioned to have [the] decision on admissibility of prior misconduct evidence affirmed on appeal." State v. Thornton , 2017 UT 9 , ¶ 54, 391 P.3d 1016 . ¶19 Pursuant to this framework, to be admissible, the evidence (1) must be "offered for a genuine, noncharacter purpose," (2) "must be relevant," 3 and (3) "the probative value of the evidence must not be substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice." State v. Lucero , 2014 UT 15 , ¶ 13, 328 P.3d 841 , abrogated on other grounds by Thornton , 2017 UT 9 , 391 P.3d 1016 . 2018And the judge who does so will be better-positioned to have [the] decision on admissibility of prior misconduct evidence affirmed on appeal." State v. Thornton , 2017 UT 9 , ¶ 54, 391 P.3d 1016 . ¶19 Pursuant to this framework, to be admissible, the evidence (1) must be "offered for a genuine, noncharacter purpose," (2) "must be relevant," 3 and (3) "the probative value of the evidence must not be substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice." State v. Lucero , 2014 UT 15 , ¶ 13, 328 P.3d 841 , abrogated on other grounds by Thornton , 2017 UT 9 , 391 P.3d 1016 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |