53 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1993–2026 19 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 sentences2016Evid., 801(d)(1), when the principal testified at trial about what the. other students said to him on the day of the incident, none of the students had yet testified and, therefore, the principal's "statement{s] [were] not the statement[s] of a declarant witness inconsistent with [their] testimony." Further, J.C. asserts that because the principal's testimony was extrinsic evidence of the students' prior statements ostensibly introduced as impeachment, rule 613(b) of the Utah Rules of Evidence applied, which prowdes that "[elxtrinsic evidence of a witness's prior inconsistent statement is admi 2007"To find plain error, we must determine that the error was obvious and that it was prejudicial." State v. Dunm, 850 P.2d 1201, 1224 (Utah 1998). 118 The first prong of the plain error test is satisfied if an obvious error exists. | 4 | 7 |
State v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2024“If any one of these requirements is not met, plain error is not established.” Johnson, 2017 UT 76, ¶ 20 (quotation simplified). ¶10 The parties initially disagree about whether there was an obvious error. 2019See Johnson, 2017 UT 76 , ¶¶ 20–21 (stating that, under plain error analysis, an error is harmful if it was “of such a magnitude that there is a reasonable likelihood of a more favorable outcome for the defendant” (quotation simplified)). | 3 | 4 |
State v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2025See id. (“Informing the jury of a classification of an offense is an obvious error because the classification of an offense is directly tied to its punishment and punishment is not a proper matter for jury consideration.” (cleaned up)); State v. Williams, 2025 UT App 118, ¶ 35 (concluding that the trial court “obviously erred” when it informed the jury of the classification and potential punishment of the charged offense); Cesspooch, 2024 UT App 15, ¶ 13 (“Since sentencing was the court’s prerogative and not the jury’s, we conclude that the court committed obvious error by instructing the jury 2025Because we agree that the trial court made an obvious error, we assume that Counsel performed deficiently by not objecting. 20220495-CA 12 2025 UT App 118 State v. Williams prejudice will prove fatal to each of his claims.” State v. Haar, 2021 UT App 109, ¶ 53 , 500 P.3d 102 (cleaned up). | 2 | 3 |
State v. Rossgreen2 sentences2016Thus, an obvious error is one that contravenes “settled appellate law,” State v. Ross, 951 P.2d 236, 239 (Utah Ct.App.1997), or “the plain language of the relevant statute,” State v. Low, 2008 UT 58, ¶ 41 , 192 P.3d 867 . ¶.28 Here, the relevant statute provides that the district court may modify an order establishing joint legal or physical custody only if the circumstances of the child, or one or both parents (or joint legal or physical custodians), “have materially and substantially changed since the entry of the order to be modified.” Utah Code Ann. § 30-3-10.4 (1) (LexisNexis 2012)C Howev 2015Thus, an obvious error is one that contravenes "settled appellate law," State v. Ross, 951 P.2d 236, 239 (Utah App.1997), or "the plain language of the relevant statute," State v. Low, 2008 UT 58, 141 , 192 P.3d 867 . | 2 | 3 |
Taylor v. Stategreen2 sentences2016“To determine whether appellate counsel missed an obvious claim on appeal, we examine the merits of the omitted issues.” Taylor v. State, 2007 UT 12, ¶ 17 , 156 P.3d 739 (brackets, citation, and internal quotation marks omitted); see also id. (“Failure to raise an issue that is without merit does not constitute constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel....” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). 2016“To determine whether appellate counsel missed an obvious claim on appeal, we examine the merits of the omitted issues.” Taylor v. State, 2007 UT 12, ¶ 17 , 156 P.3d 739 (brackets, citation, and internal quotation marks omitted); see also id. (“Failure to raise an issue that is without merit does not constitute constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel....” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Caseygreen2 sentences2012See generally Casey, 2008 UT 55 , 1 41, 82 P.3d 1106 (explaining that if a defendant fails to show an obvious error, his plain error claim fails). 2004See State v. Casey, 2003 UT 55 ,¶44, 82 P.3d 1106 ; State v. Powell, 872 P.2d 1027, 1031 (Utah 1994). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Lowgreen2 sentences2016Thus, an obvious error is one that contravenes “settled appellate law,” State v. Ross, 951 P.2d 236, 239 (Utah Ct.App.1997), or “the plain language of the relevant statute,” State v. Low, 2008 UT 58, ¶ 41 , 192 P.3d 867 . ¶.28 Here, the relevant statute provides that the district court may modify an order establishing joint legal or physical custody only if the circumstances of the child, or one or both parents (or joint legal or physical custodians), “have materially and substantially changed since the entry of the order to be modified.” Utah Code Ann. § 30-3-10.4 (1) (LexisNexis 2012)C Howev 2016Thus, an obvious error is one that contravenes “settled appellate law,” State v. Ross, 951 P.2d 236, 239 (Utah Ct.App.1997), or “the plain language of the relevant statute,” State v. Low, 2008 UT 58, ¶ 41 , 192 P.3d 867 . ¶.28 Here, the relevant statute provides that the district court may modify an order establishing joint legal or physical custody only if the circumstances of the child, or one or both parents (or joint legal or physical custodians), “have materially and substantially changed since the entry of the order to be modified.” Utah Code Ann. § 30-3-10.4 (1) (LexisNexis 2012)C Howev | 1 | 4 |
State v. Deangreen2 sentences2005Nonetheless, “[t]o demon strate plain error, a defendant must establish 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 for the appellant.’ ” Id. at ¶ 15 (quoting State v. Holgate, 2000 UT 74, ¶ 13 , 10 P.3d 346 ). ¶ 18 We cannot determine if the trial court committed an obvious error without an adequate record. ‘“When a defendant predicates error to this [cjourt, he has the duty and responsibility of supporting such allegation by an adequa 2005Nonetheless, "[t]o demonstrate *1007 plain error, a defendant must establish 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 for the appellant.'" Id. at ¶ 15 (quoting State v. Holgate, 2000 UT 74, ¶ 13 , 10 P.3d 346 ). ¶ 18 We cannot determine if the trial court committed an obvious error without an adequate record. "`When a defendant predicates error to this [c]ourt, he has the duty and responsibility of supporting such allegation by an ad | 1 | 3 |
State v. Holgategreen2 sentences2019The applicability of rule 2.11 to the instant facts is not clear enough to hold that the juvenile judge made an obvious error. 5 ¶30 "To demonstrate plain error, a defendant must establish that (i) [a]n 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 for the appellant, or phrased differently, our confidence in the verdict is undermined." State v. Holgate , 2000 UT 74 , ¶ 13, 10 P.3d 346 (alteration in original) (citation omitted) (internal quotation mar 2019The applicability of rule 2.11 to the instant facts is not clear enough to hold that the juvenile judge made an obvious error. 5 ¶30 "To demonstrate plain error, a defendant must establish that (i) [a]n 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 for the appellant, or phrased differently, our confidence in the verdict is undermined." State v. Holgate , 2000 UT 74 , ¶ 13, 10 P.3d 346 (alteration in original) (citation omitted) (internal quotation mar | 1 | 3 |
Strickland v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2023However, we are not 20200371-CA 5 2023 UT App 42 State v. Mitchell persuaded either that Defense Counsel performed deficiently or that the district court was confronted with an obvious error that it should have corrected. ¶15 To prevail on grounds of ineffective assistance, a defendant must demonstrate, first, “that counsel’s performance was deficient, in that it fell below an objective standard of reasonable professional judgment,” and second, “that counsel’s deficient performance was prejudicial—i.e., that it affected the outcome of the case.” State v. Litherland, 2000 UT 76, ¶ 19 , 12 P.3d 2007Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 694 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Ellifritzgreen2 sentences2019See State v. Ellifritz, 835 P.2d 170, 174 (Utah Ct. App. 1992) (“When [a] defendant raises the issues of both plain error and ineffective assistance of counsel, a common standard is applicable. 1994Ellifritz, 835 P.2d at 174 . | 1 | 2 |
Farmers Texas County Mutual Insurance Co. v. Romogreen1 sentence2026Co. v. Romo, 250 S.W.3d 527, 539 (Tex. App. 2008); see also Caudill v. Commonwealth, 120 S.W.3d 635 , 676 n.4 (Ky. 2003) (concluding that jury instructions “conformed to the obviously intended meaning of [a] statute” when the enacted statutory “language [made] no sense and [was] an obvious typographical error”); Stanton v. Frankel Bros. | 1 | 1 |
Caudill v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2026Co. v. Romo, 250 S.W.3d 527, 539 (Tex. App. 2008); see also Caudill v. Commonwealth, 120 S.W.3d 635 , 676 n.4 (Ky. 2003) (concluding that jury instructions “conformed to the obviously intended meaning of [a] statute” when the enacted statutory “language [made] no sense and [was] an obvious typographical error”); Stanton v. Frankel Bros. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Walter Coatoamgreen1 sentence2026See United States v. Coatoam, 245 F.3d 553, 559 (6th Cir. 2001) (stating that the “very language of the statute . . . compels our conclusion that Congress intended . . . to cross-reference readers to a related statute” instead of the 20230738-CA 9 2026 UT App 1 State v. Allred statute indicated in the text); King v. Housing Auth., 670 F.2d 952 , 954 n.4 (11th Cir. 1982) (concluding that a cross-referenced subsection in the Code of Federal Regulations was a typographical error because the referenced section did not concern the material in the referring regulation). ¶20 That the cross-reference | 1 | 1 |
State v. Yusufgreen1 sentence2026See, e.g., State v. Yusuf, 2025 UT App 189, ¶ 31 , 582 P.3d 1270 (“An error is harmful if, absent the error, there is a reasonable likelihood of a more favorable outcome for the defendant or our confidence in the verdict is undermined.” (cleaned up)). ¶59 With respect to the court’s obvious error on the jury instruction, the remedy would have been a corrective instruction informing the jury not to consider Draughon’s potential punishment during its deliberations. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Allredgreen1 sentence2026See United States v. Coatoam, 245 F.3d 553, 559 (6th Cir. 2001) (stating that the “very language of the statute . . . compels our conclusion that Congress intended . . . to cross-reference readers to a related statute” instead of the 20230738-CA 9 2026 UT App 1 State v. Allred statute indicated in the text); King v. Housing Auth., 670 F.2d 952 , 954 n.4 (11th Cir. 1982) (concluding that a cross-referenced subsection in the Code of Federal Regulations was a typographical error because the referenced section did not concern the material in the referring regulation). ¶20 That the cross-reference | 1 | 1 |
McKee v. American Home Products Corp.green1 sentence2025Home Prods., Corp., 782 P.2d 1045, 1053 (Wash. 1989) (en banc) (cleaned up). ¶35 We agree that the rationale for the learned intermediary rule does not extend to circumstances where a pharmacist has information about a patient-specific risk or observes an obvious error on the face of the prescription. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Thomasgreen1 sentence2025See id. (“Informing the jury of a classification of an offense is an obvious error because the classification of an offense is directly tied to its punishment and punishment is not a proper matter for jury consideration.” (cleaned up)); State v. Williams, 2025 UT App 118, ¶ 35 (concluding that the trial court “obviously erred” when it informed the jury of the classification and potential punishment of the charged offense); Cesspooch, 2024 UT App 15, ¶ 13 (“Since sentencing was the court’s prerogative and not the jury’s, we conclude that the court committed obvious error by instructing the jury | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cesspoochgreen2 sentences2025“To prevail on plain error review, a defendant must establish 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 for the appellant.” State v. Cesspooch, 2024 UT App 15, ¶ 7 , 544 P.3d 1046 (cleaned up), cert. denied, 550 P.3d 994 (Utah 2024). ¶24 In this situation, the State does not contest Thomas’s assertion that the trial court committed obvious error and that therefore the first two elements of plain error are met here. 2025“To prevail on plain error review, a defendant must establish 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 for the appellant.” State v. Cesspooch, 2024 UT App 15, ¶ 7 , 544 P.3d 1046 (cleaned up), cert. denied, 550 P.3d 994 (Utah 2024). ¶24 In this situation, the State does not contest Thomas’s assertion that the trial court committed obvious error and that therefore the first two elements of plain error are met here. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Piercegreen2 sentences2024And to satisfy this burden, Cesspooch must show that, “absent the error, there is a reasonable likelihood of a more favorable outcome.” Pierce, 2022 UT 22, ¶ 22 (quotation simplified). 2024“Under a plain error standard of review, an error is obvious only if the law governing the error was clear at the time the alleged error was made.” Pierce, 2022 UT 22, ¶ 23 (quotation simplified). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Jarvisgreen1 sentence2023The State argues that even if separate acts were required, there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that Graydon made a threat and displayed a show of force in this case through separate (continued…) 20190918-CA 13 2023 UT App 4 State v. Graydon ¶36 Though this issue appears to have been unaddressed in a Utah appellate opinion, other courts have held that a single act or a single series of acts may be used to prove more than one element of a crime. 6 See, e.g., State v. Jarvis, 649 N.W.2d 186, 193 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002) (“The same sequence of events can prove multiple elements of one | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Tuckergreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Holsombackgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Marquinagreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Van Huizengreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Burnsidegreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Dibellogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Idrive Logistics LLC v. Integracore LLCgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Thomasgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Romangreen | 1 | 1 |
| Lafferty v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Hogge v. Hoggegreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Palmergreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Garciagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Overstock. Com, Inc. v. SmartBargains, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Thurnwald v. A.E.green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Verdegreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Geukgeuziangreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Hamiltongreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Anastasios S. Katzopoulosgreen | 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. Haar
green
2 sentences2025Because we agree that the trial court made an obvious error, we assume that Counsel performed deficiently by not objecting. 20220495-CA 12 2025 UT App 118 State v. Williams prejudice will prove fatal to each of his claims.” State v. Haar, 2021 UT App 109, ¶ 53 , 500 P.3d 102 (cleaned up). 2025Because we agree that the trial court made an obvious error, we assume that Counsel performed deficiently by not objecting. 20220495-CA 12 2025 UT App 118 State v. Williams prejudice will prove fatal to each of his claims.” State v. Haar, 2021 UT App 109, ¶ 53 , 500 P.3d 102 (cleaned up). | 2 | 2021–2025 |
State v. Litherland
green
2 sentences2023However, we are not 20200371-CA 5 2023 UT App 42 State v. Mitchell persuaded either that Defense Counsel performed deficiently or that the district court was confronted with an obvious error that it should have corrected. ¶15 To prevail on grounds of ineffective assistance, a defendant must demonstrate, first, “that counsel’s performance was deficient, in that it fell below an objective standard of reasonable professional judgment,” and second, “that counsel’s deficient performance was prejudicial—i.e., that it affected the outcome of the case.” State v. Litherland, 2000 UT 76, ¶ 19 , 12 P.3d 2023However, we are not 20200371-CA 5 2023 UT App 42 State v. Mitchell persuaded either that Defense Counsel performed deficiently or that the district court was confronted with an obvious error that it should have corrected. ¶15 To prevail on grounds of ineffective assistance, a defendant must demonstrate, first, “that counsel’s performance was deficient, in that it fell below an objective standard of reasonable professional judgment,” and second, “that counsel’s deficient performance was prejudicial—i.e., that it affected the outcome of the case.” State v. Litherland, 2000 UT 76, ¶ 19 , 12 P.3d | 2 | 2016–2023 |
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 . | 2 | 2020–2021 |
Jimmie Mae King v. The Housing Authority of the City of Huntsville, Alabama a Corporation
green
1 sentence2026See United States v. Coatoam, 245 F.3d 553, 559 (6th Cir. 2001) (stating that the “very language of the statute . . . compels our conclusion that Congress intended . . . to cross-reference readers to a related statute” instead of the 20230738-CA 9 2026 UT App 1 State v. Allred statute indicated in the text); King v. Housing Auth., 670 F.2d 952 , 954 n.4 (11th Cir. 1982) (concluding that a cross-referenced subsection in the Code of Federal Regulations was a typographical error because the referenced section did not concern the material in the referring regulation). ¶20 That the cross-reference | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Rosecrans
green
1 sentence2024Therefore, this statement from Jok did not create an obvious requirement here for the trial court to make factual findings. 20210943-CA 15 2024 UT App 128 | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Mason
neutral
2 sentences2023The State argues that even if separate acts were required, there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that Graydon made a threat and displayed a show of force in this case through separate (continued…) 20190918-CA 13 2023 UT App 4 State v. Graydon ¶36 Though this issue appears to have been unaddressed in a Utah appellate opinion, other courts have held that a single act or a single series of acts may be used to prove more than one element of a crime. 6 See, e.g., State v. Jarvis, 649 N.W.2d 186, 193 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002) (“The same sequence of events can prove multiple elements of one 2023The State argues that even if separate acts were required, there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that Graydon made a threat and displayed a show of force in this case through separate (continued…) 20190918-CA 13 2023 UT App 4 State v. Graydon ¶36 Though this issue appears to have been unaddressed in a Utah appellate opinion, other courts have held that a single act or a single series of acts may be used to prove more than one element of a crime. 6 See, e.g., State v. Jarvis, 649 N.W.2d 186, 193 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002) (“The same sequence of events can prove multiple elements of one | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Mitchell
neutral
1 sentence2023However, we are not 20200371-CA 5 2023 UT App 42 State v. Mitchell persuaded either that Defense Counsel performed deficiently or that the district court was confronted with an obvious error that it should have corrected. ¶15 To prevail on grounds of ineffective assistance, a defendant must demonstrate, first, “that counsel’s performance was deficient, in that it fell below an objective standard of reasonable professional judgment,” and second, “that counsel’s deficient performance was prejudicial—i.e., that it affected the outcome of the case.” State v. Litherland, 2000 UT 76, ¶ 19 , 12 P.3d | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Graydon
green
1 sentence2023The State argues that even if separate acts were required, there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that Graydon made a threat and displayed a show of force in this case through separate (continued…) 20190918-CA 13 2023 UT App 4 State v. Graydon ¶36 Though this issue appears to have been unaddressed in a Utah appellate opinion, other courts have held that a single act or a single series of acts may be used to prove more than one element of a crime. 6 See, e.g., State v. Jarvis, 649 N.W.2d 186, 193 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002) (“The same sequence of events can prove multiple elements of one | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Johnson
green
2 sentences2023Johnson again recognizes that this issue was not preserved; he contends that “the lack of the requirement of a mens rea of a specific intent to defraud is so egregious that the convictions should be vacated because [of] 20210838-CA 10 2023 UT App 145 State v. Johnson plain error and manifest injustice.” 4 Again, plain error requires an obvious error and prejudice. 2023Id. ¶24 Third, Johnson asserts that the jury instruction related to the timing of the order suspending him from the practice of law was erroneous. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| State v. Scott green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| In re K.S. green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| In re S.T... green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| Daniels v. Deutsche Bank National Trust green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| State v. Redcap green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| B.T. v. State (In Re State Ex Rel. K.T.) green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Danneman v. Danneman green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Tronson v. Eagar green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Hill v. Estate of Allred green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Waterfield green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Snyder v. Snyder neutral | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| In re J.C. green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Ross v. State green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| State v. Maestas green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| State v. Mellen green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| State v. Bedell green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Lehr v. Robertson green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| Carpenter v. Riverton City green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Crawford v. Washington green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Anthony Rozelle Banks v. Dan M. Reynolds, Warden, Oklahoma State Penitentiary, McAlester Oklahoma Susan B. Loving, Attorney General of Oklahoma green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| State v. Reed green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| State v. Blackwell green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
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.
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.