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 2 courts 1969–2012 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 |
|---|---|---|
Oregon v. Elstadgreen2 sentences2012See Troyer, 910 P.2d at 1187 ("The United States Supreme Court has held that 'a simple failure to administer Miranda warnings is not in itself a violation of the Fifth Amendment." (quoting Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 , 306 n. 1, 105 S.Ct. 1285 , 84 L.Ed.2d 222 (1985))). 2012See Troyer, 910 P.2d at 1187 ("The United States Supreme Court has held that 'a simple failure to administer Miranda warnings is not in itself a violation of the Fifth Amendment." (quoting Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 , 306 n. 1, 105 S.Ct. 1285 , 84 L.Ed.2d 222 (1985))). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Troyergreen2 sentences2012See Troyer, 910 P.2d at 1187 (“The United States Supreme Court has held that ‘a simple failure to administer Miranda warnings is not in itself a violation of the Fifth Amendment.’” (quoting Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 , 306 n.1 (1985))). 2012See Troyer, 910 P.2d at 1187 ("The United States Supreme Court has held that 'a simple failure to administer Miranda warnings is not in itself a violation of the Fifth Amendment." (quoting Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 , 306 n. 1, 105 S.Ct. 1285 , 84 L.Ed.2d 222 (1985))). | 2 | 2 |
Hughes v. Hughesgreen1 sentence1989Id. at 1217 (Wright, J., dissenting). | 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. Houston
neutral
2 sentences2007See id. at ¶¶ 33-36; State v. Houston, 2006 UT App 437, ¶ 10 , 147 P.3d 543 (holding that the trial court's "urg[ing]" defendant to obtain counsel was insufficient to find a voluntary waiver). 2007See id. at ¶¶ 33-36; State v. Houston, 2006 UT App 437, ¶ 10 , 147 P.3d 543 (holding that the trial court's "urg[ing]" defendant to obtain counsel was insufficient to find a voluntary waiver). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Leyva
green
1 sentence2007Tiedemann also argues that, even if he gave a valid initial waiver, he later unambiguously raised his right to remain silent, and the officers failed to honor that request in violation of his due process rights. ¶ 15 This court addressed the threshold requirements for a valid waiver of Miranda rights and a subsequent invocation of those rights in State v. Leyva, 951 P.2d 738 (Utah 1997). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Hardy v. Morris
green
1 sentence2005This ruling was consistent with previous holdings, such as Hardy v. Morris, 636 P.2d 473 (Utah 1981), that were overruled by this court’s decision in Tuttle .. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Remer J. Dasher v. Norman Stripling, Probation Officer
green
1 sentence1996So holding, the court erred, for it should have required the defendant to show that he was prejudiced by his absence from the trial.” Id. at 387 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
People v. White
green
2 sentences1969(As to waiver see 21 Am.Jur.2d Criminal Law, Sec. 219; as to *161 waiver by acquiescence in delay see People v. White, 2 N.Y.2d 220 , 159 N.Y.S.2d 168 , 140 N.E.2d 258 (1957), and cases therein cited.) The issues were determined adversely to the defendant and under traditional rules should not be disturbed. 1969(As to waiver see 21 Am.Jur.2d Criminal Law, Sec. 219; as to *161 waiver by acquiescence in delay see People v. White, 2 N.Y.2d 220 , 159 N.Y.S.2d 168 , 140 N.E.2d 258 (1957), and cases therein cited.) The issues were determined adversely to the defendant and under traditional rules should not be disturbed. | 1 | 1969–1969 |
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.