8 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1997–2020 0 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. Dunngreen2 sentences2016Buyers appear to attempt to raise the issue under the plain error doctrine. "[Tlo establish the existence of plain error ..., the appellant must show the following: (H) An error exists; (i) the error should have been obvious to the trial. court; and (i) the error is harmful ... or phrased differently, our confidence in the verdict is undermined." State v. Dunn, 850 P.2d 1201, 1208-09 (Utah 1993) (footnote omitted). 2016"If any, one of these requirements is not met, plain error is not established." Id. at 1209 (citations omitted). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Harrisgreen2 sentences2018See infra note 14. 6 Apodaca refers in his brief to the federal and state constitutions, asserting that they both "prohibit the admission of involuntary statements." "As a general rule, we will not engage in a state constitutional analysis unless an argument for different analyses under the state and federal constitution is briefed." State v. Harris , 2004 UT 103 , ¶ 23, 104 P.3d 1250 (quotation simplified). 2018See infra note 14. 6 Apodaca refers in his brief to the federal and state constitutions, asserting that they both "prohibit the admission of involuntary statements." "As a general rule, we will not engage in a state constitutional analysis unless an argument for different analyses under the state and federal constitution is briefed." State v. Harris , 2004 UT 103 , ¶ 23, 104 P.3d 1250 (quotation simplified). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Leegreen2 sentences2015See State v. Lee, 2014 UT App 4, ¶ 20 , 318 P.3d 1164 ("(Invited error precludes appellate review of an issue under the plain error standard."); State v. Alfatlawi, 2006 UT App 511, ¶ 26 , 153 P.3d 804 ("A defendant invites error where he affirmatively ap-provel[s] of the jury instructions at trial." (alteration in original) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). 2015See State v. Lee, 2014 UT App 4, ¶ 20 , 318 P.3d 1164 ("(Invited error precludes appellate review of an issue under the plain error standard."); State v. Alfatlawi, 2006 UT App 511, ¶ 26 , 153 P.3d 804 ("A defendant invites error where he affirmatively ap-provel[s] of the jury instructions at trial." (alteration in original) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Saundersgreen2 sentences1999The Court of Appeals addressed the issue under the plain error doctrine and held that “[r]egardless of whether Instruction No. 26 was actually erroneous, we cannot conclude that the instruction would have been obviously erroneous.” Saunders, 893 P.2d at 588-89 (footnote omitted). 1999The Court of Appeals addressed the issue under the plain error doctrine and held that "[r]egardless of whether Instruction No. 26 was actually erroneous, we cannot conclude that the instruction would have been obviously erroneous." Saunders, 893 P.2d at 588-89 (footnote omitted). | 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. Hummel
green
2 sentences2020Rather than focus on whether the trial court committed obvious error by striking the perjury statement and issuing the curative instruction it did instead of employing some other remedy, such as declaring a mistrial, Almaguer’s entire analysis focuses on whether the prosecutor committed misconduct and whether that misconduct was prejudicial. ¶16 But it is not our role to “review the actions of counsel—at least not directly.” State v. Hummel, 2017 UT 19, ¶ 107 , 393 P.3d 314 . 2020Rather than focus on whether the trial court committed obvious error by striking the perjury statement and issuing the curative instruction it did instead of employing some other remedy, such as declaring a mistrial, Almaguer’s entire analysis focuses on whether the prosecutor committed misconduct and whether that misconduct was prejudicial. ¶16 But it is not our role to “review the actions of counsel—at least not directly.” State v. Hummel, 2017 UT 19, ¶ 107 , 393 P.3d 314 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Martinez
neutral
2 sentences2016State v. Martinez, 2013 UT App 154, ¶ 4 , 304 P.3d 110 ; see also Utah R. 2016State v. Martinez, 2013 UT App 154, ¶ 4 , 304 P.3d 110 ; see also Utah R. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Layton City v. Carr
green
2 sentences2015Because the alleged errors in the jury instructions are both unpreserved and invited, Beckering argues *678 that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to ensure that the jury instructions were correct. 121 To succeed on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, Beckering must show "both 'that counsel's performance was deficient' and 'that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense"" Layton City v. Carr, 2014 UT App 227, ¶ 12 , 336 P.3d 587 (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)). 2015Because the alleged errors in the jury instructions are both unpreserved and invited, Beckering argues *678 that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to ensure that the jury instructions were correct. 121 To succeed on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, Beckering must show "both 'that counsel's performance was deficient' and 'that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense"" Layton City v. Carr, 2014 UT App 227, ¶ 12 , 336 P.3d 587 (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences2015Because the alleged errors in the jury instructions are both unpreserved and invited, Beckering argues *678 that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to ensure that the jury instructions were correct. 121 To succeed on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, Beckering must show "both 'that counsel's performance was deficient' and 'that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense"" Layton City v. Carr, 2014 UT App 227, ¶ 12 , 336 P.3d 587 (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)). 2015Because the alleged errors in the jury instructions are both unpreserved and invited, Beckering argues *678 that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to ensure that the jury instructions were correct. 121 To succeed on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, Beckering must show "both 'that counsel's performance was deficient' and 'that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense"" Layton City v. Carr, 2014 UT App 227, ¶ 12 , 336 P.3d 587 (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Alfatlawi
green
2 sentences2015See State v. Lee, 2014 UT App 4, ¶ 20 , 318 P.3d 1164 ("(Invited error precludes appellate review of an issue under the plain error standard."); State v. Alfatlawi, 2006 UT App 511, ¶ 26 , 153 P.3d 804 ("A defendant invites error where he affirmatively ap-provel[s] of the jury instructions at trial." (alteration in original) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). 2015See State v. Lee, 2014 UT App 4, ¶ 20 , 318 P.3d 1164 ("(Invited error precludes appellate review of an issue under the plain error standard."); State v. Alfatlawi, 2006 UT App 511, ¶ 26 , 153 P.3d 804 ("A defendant invites error where he affirmatively ap-provel[s] of the jury instructions at trial." (alteration in original) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. McNeil
green
2 sentences2014State v. McNeil, 2013 UT App 134, ¶ 24 , 302 P.3d 844 . 121 Here, the trial court asked Trial Counsel, "Does the defense waive any objections to the instructions?" and Trial Counsel responded, "Yes." This affirmative representation to the court that there was no objection to the jury instructions forecloses Lee from "tak[ing] advantage of an error committed at trial" because Trial Counsel "led the trial court into committing the error." State v. Hamilton, 2003 UT 22, ¶ 54 , 70 P.3d 111 (alteration in original) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 2014State v. McNeil, 2013 UT App 134, ¶ 24 , 302 P.3d 844 . 121 Here, the trial court asked Trial Counsel, "Does the defense waive any objections to the instructions?" and Trial Counsel responded, "Yes." This affirmative representation to the court that there was no objection to the jury instructions forecloses Lee from "tak[ing] advantage of an error committed at trial" because Trial Counsel "led the trial court into committing the error." State v. Hamilton, 2003 UT 22, ¶ 54 , 70 P.3d 111 (alteration in original) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Hamilton
green
2 sentences2014State v. McNeil, 2013 UT App 134, ¶ 24 , 302 P.3d 844 . 121 Here, the trial court asked Trial Counsel, "Does the defense waive any objections to the instructions?" and Trial Counsel responded, "Yes." This affirmative representation to the court that there was no objection to the jury instructions forecloses Lee from "tak[ing] advantage of an error committed at trial" because Trial Counsel "led the trial court into committing the error." State v. Hamilton, 2003 UT 22, ¶ 54 , 70 P.3d 111 (alteration in original) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 2014State v. McNeil, 2013 UT App 134, ¶ 24 , 302 P.3d 844 . 121 Here, the trial court asked Trial Counsel, "Does the defense waive any objections to the instructions?" and Trial Counsel responded, "Yes." This affirmative representation to the court that there was no objection to the jury instructions forecloses Lee from "tak[ing] advantage of an error committed at trial" because Trial Counsel "led the trial court into committing the error." State v. Hamilton, 2003 UT 22, ¶ 54 , 70 P.3d 111 (alteration in original) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.