State argues that any error in Utah

2024Even without the additional context of subsection 76- 8-306(2)(a), the State argues, the plain language of subsection 76-8- 306(1) indicates that the jury could have convicted Paule of obstruction of justice despite acquitting him on all other charges. _____________________________________________________________ 45 Id. ¶ 53 (cleaned up). 46 Id. 47 Id. 12 STATE v. PAULE Cite as 2024 UT 2 ¶43 Thus, the State argues that the court of appeals did not err in holding that the jury’s verdict was not legally impossible.

2023That is, as stated by the State, had she been asked at trial, Emily would have clarified that, 20180597-CA 26 2023 UT App 19 State v. Eddington “[y]es, she had men in her bedroom before, and yes, she had [engaged in sexual intercourse] with some of them; but those were all steady boyfriends, which Eddington was not,” and “[w]hat she meant by the ‘not that kind of girl’ testimony is that she wasn’t the sort who brought men up to her room for sex on a first date.” But in our view, the damaging potential of the cross-examination was that the evidence that Emily had a sexual past would have flatly

2020It “discourages parties from intentionally misleading the trial court so as to preserve a hidden ground for reversal on appeal and gives the trial court the first opportunity to address the claim of error.” State v. McNeil, 2016 UT 3, ¶ 17 , 365 P.3d 699 (cleaned up). ¶34 Here, the State argues that any error in admitting the entire phone call was invited because defense counsel encouraged the court to make the erroneous ruling.

2020It “discourages parties from intentionally misleading the trial court so as to preserve a hidden ground for reversal on appeal and gives the trial court the first opportunity to address the claim of error.” State v. McNeil, 2016 UT 3, ¶ 17 , 365 P.3d 699 (cleaned up). ¶34 Here, the State argues that any error in admitting the entire phone call was invited because defense counsel encouraged the court to make the erroneous ruling.

2012"We will reverse an erroneous evidentiary ruling only if, absent the error, there is a reasonable likelihood that there would have been a more favorable result for the defendant." State v. Kohl, 2000 UT 35, ¶ 17 , 999 P.2d 7 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

2012"We will reverse an erroneous evidentiary ruling only if, absent the error, there is a reasonable likelihood that there would have been a more favorable result for the defendant." State v. Kohl, 2000 UT 35, ¶ 17 , 999 P.2d 7 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

2011The State argues that any error in the trial court's instruction was invited by Santonio when he failed to raise the matter during the parties' discussion of jury instructions with the court and acknowledged that he had nothing further to discuss when the trial court asked, "[Are we done talking about jury instructions then?" See generally State v. Alfatlawi, 2006 UT App 511, ¶ 26 , 153 P.3d 804 ("A defendant invites error where he affirmatively approve[s] of the jury instructions at trial." (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted)). 127 We do not address the State's argumen

2011The State argues that any error in the trial court's instruction was invited by Santonio when he failed to raise the matter during the parties' discussion of jury instructions with the court and acknowledged that he had nothing further to discuss when the trial court asked, "[Are we done talking about jury instructions then?" See generally State v. Alfatlawi, 2006 UT App 511, ¶ 26 , 153 P.3d 804 ("A defendant invites error where he affirmatively approve[s] of the jury instructions at trial." (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted)). 127 We do not address the State's argumen

2009The State argues that any violation was merely technical in nature. ¶ 32 In order for the admission of evidence to constitute plain error, "a defendant must demonstrate that (i) an error exists; (ii) the error should have been obvious to the trial court; and (iii) the error is harmful, i.e., absent the error, there is a reasonable likelihood of a more favorable outcome." State v. Ross, 2007 UT 89, ¶ 17 , 174 P.3d 628 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

2009The State argues that any violation was merely technical in nature. ¶ 32 In order for the admission of evidence to constitute plain error, "a defendant must demonstrate that (i) an error exists; (ii) the error should have been obvious to the trial court; and (iii) the error is harmful, i.e., absent the error, there is a reasonable likelihood of a more favorable outcome." State v. Ross, 2007 UT 89, ¶ 17 , 174 P.3d 628 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

2007As recognized in State v. Knight, "when an element of the crime ... is in dispute, and the evidence is consistent with both the defendant's and the State's theory of the case, failing to instruct on the lesser included offense presumptively affects the outcome of the trial ... [and] our confidence in the verdict is undermined." 2008 UT App 354 , ¶ 17, 79 P.3d 969 .

2007FAILING TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON THE LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES WAS NOT HARMLESS ERROR $24 Finally, the State argues that any error in the jury instructions was harmless. "[Hlarmless error is an error that is sufficiently inconsequential that there is no reasonable likelihood that it affected the outcome of the proceedings." State v. Evans, 2001 UT 22, ¶ 20 , 20 P.3d 888 .

2007FAILING TO INSTRUCT THE JURY ON THE LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES WAS NOT HARMLESS ERROR $24 Finally, the State argues that any error in the jury instructions was harmless. "[Hlarmless error is an error that is sufficiently inconsequential that there is no reasonable likelihood that it affected the outcome of the proceedings." State v. Evans, 2001 UT 22, ¶ 20 , 20 P.3d 888 .

2002To determine if an evidentiary error is harmless, we look at "`whether there is a reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction.'" State v. Kiriluk, 1999 UT App 30, ¶ 11 , 975 P.2d 469 (citation omitted).

2002To determine if an evidentiary error is harmless, we look at "`whether there is a reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction.'" State v. Kiriluk, 1999 UT App 30, ¶ 11 , 975 P.2d 469 (citation omitted).