53 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1993–2026 18 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. Jokgreen2 sentences2026See, e.g., Jok, 2021 UT 35, ¶ 29 (explaining that reviewing courts may not substitute their opinion for that of the jury on a sufficiency of the evidence challenge). 2023For “a sufficiency of the evidence challenge, we will only reverse the fact finder’s verdict when the evidence is sufficiently inconclusive or inherently improbable such that reasonable minds must have entertained a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime for which he or she was convicted.” State v. Jok, 2021 UT 35, ¶ 17 , 493 P.3d 665 (quotation simplified). ¶17 Second, Barnes asserts that his trial counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance by not requesting a lesser- included-offense jury instruction on the object rape charge. | 3 | 7 |
State v. Ashcraftgreen2 sentences2020Specifically, he claims that the State’s evidence “did not prove that [he] knowingly provided false or fraudulent information to Insurance [Company] regarding the timing and specifics of the crash.” ¶34 “On a sufficiency of the evidence claim we give substantial deference to the jury,” and the operative question is “simply whether the jury’s verdict is reasonable in light of all of the evidence taken cumulatively, under a standard of review that yields deference to all reasonable inferences supporting the jury’s verdict.” State v. Ashcraft, 2015 UT 5, ¶¶ 18, 24 , 349 P.3d 664 ; see also Mackin 2020Specifically, he claims that the State’s evidence “did not prove that [he] knowingly provided false or fraudulent information to Insurance [Company] regarding the timing and specifics of the crash.” ¶34 “On a sufficiency of the evidence claim we give substantial deference to the jury,” and the operative question is “simply whether the jury’s verdict is reasonable in light of all of the evidence taken cumulatively, under a standard of review that yields deference to all reasonable inferences supporting the jury’s verdict.” State v. Ashcraft, 2015 UT 5, ¶¶ 18, 24 , 349 P.3d 664 ; see also Mackin | 2 | 7 |
State v. Darnstaedtgreen2 sentences2023It is simply whether the inference adopted by the jury was sustainable.”); accord State v. Darnstaedt, 2021 UT App 19 , ¶ 35 n.6, 483 P.3d 71 , cert. denied, 496 P.3d 716 (Utah 2021). ¶45 In sum, we conclude that “some evidence” existed for the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Naranjo failed to respond to an officer’s signal to stop and possessed a controlled substance. 2023It is simply whether the inference adopted by the jury was sustainable.”); accord State v. Darnstaedt, 2021 UT App 19 , ¶ 35 n.6, 483 P.3d 71 , cert. denied, 496 P.3d 716 (Utah 2021). ¶45 In sum, we conclude that “some evidence” existed for the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Naranjo failed to respond to an officer’s signal to stop and possessed a controlled substance. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Mackingreen2 sentences2020Specifically, he claims that the State’s evidence “did not prove that [he] knowingly provided false or fraudulent information to Insurance [Company] regarding the timing and specifics of the crash.” ¶34 “On a sufficiency of the evidence claim we give substantial deference to the jury,” and the operative question is “simply whether the jury’s verdict is reasonable in light of all of the evidence taken cumulatively, under a standard of review that yields deference to all reasonable inferences supporting the jury’s verdict.” State v. Ashcraft, 2015 UT 5, ¶¶ 18, 24 , 349 P.3d 664 ; see also Mackin 2020Specifically, he claims that the State’s evidence “did not prove that [he] knowingly provided false or fraudulent information to Insurance [Company] regarding the timing and specifics of the crash.” ¶34 “On a sufficiency of the evidence claim we give substantial deference to the jury,” and the operative question is “simply whether the jury’s verdict is reasonable in light of all of the evidence taken cumulatively, under a standard of review that yields deference to all reasonable inferences supporting the jury’s verdict.” State v. Ashcraft, 2015 UT 5, ¶¶ 18, 24 , 349 P.3d 664 ; see also Mackin | 2 | 2 |
State v. Rudolphgreen2 sentences2001See State v. Rudolph, 2000 UT App 155, ¶ 24 , 3 P.3d 192 (declining "to establish a new rule requiring a criminal defendant to preserve a sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim by making an objection or filing a motion challenging the sufficiency of the evidence at the trial court level"). 2001See State v. Rudolph, 2000 UT App 155, ¶ 24 , 3 P.3d 192 (declining "to establish a new rule requiring a criminal defendant to preserve a sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim by making an objection or filing a motion challenging the sufficiency of the evidence at the trial court level"). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Robbinsgreen2 sentences2024As part of this challenge, Mayorga contends—for the first time on appeal—that Elise’s trial testimony was “inherently improbable” under State v. Robbins, 2009 UT 23 , 210 P.3d 288 , and therefore should not have been considered in the sufficiency-of- the-evidence analysis. 2024As part of this challenge, Mayorga contends—for the first time on appeal—that Elise’s trial testimony was “inherently improbable” under State v. Robbins, 2009 UT 23 , 210 P.3d 288 , and therefore should not have been considered in the sufficiency-of- the-evidence analysis. | 1 | 3 |
State v. Hamiltongreen2 sentences2014We will affirm a jury's verdict against a sufficiency of the evidence challenge "if upon reviewing the evidence and all inferences that can be reasonably drawn from it, [we conclude] that some evidence exists from which a reasonable jury could find that the elements of the crime had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Mills, 2012 UT App 367, ¶ 40 , 293 P.3d 1129 (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Hamilton, 2003 UT 22, ¶ 41 , 70 P.3d 111 ). 110 Williams next challenges the trial court's decision to exclude testimony regarding child pornography on the victim's phone. 2014We will affirm a jury's verdict against a sufficiency of the evidence challenge "if upon reviewing the evidence and all inferences that can be reasonably drawn from it, [we conclude] that some evidence exists from which a reasonable jury could find that the elements of the crime had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Mills, 2012 UT App 367, ¶ 40 , 293 P.3d 1129 (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Hamilton, 2003 UT 22, ¶ 41 , 70 P.3d 111 ). 110 Williams next challenges the trial court's decision to exclude testimony regarding child pornography on the victim's phone. | 1 | 3 |
State v. Holgategreen2 sentences2021See 2000 UT 74, ¶ 11 , 10 P.3d 346 (―As a general rule, claims not raised before the trial court may not be raised on appeal.‖). 2021See 2000 UT 74, ¶ 11 , 10 P.3d 346 (―As a general rule, claims not raised before the trial court may not be raised on appeal.‖). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Millsgreen2 sentences2014We will affirm a jury's verdict against a sufficiency of the evidence challenge "if upon reviewing the evidence and all inferences that can be reasonably drawn from it, [we conclude] that some evidence exists from which a reasonable jury could find that the elements of the crime had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Mills, 2012 UT App 367, ¶ 40 , 293 P.3d 1129 (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Hamilton, 2003 UT 22, ¶ 41 , 70 P.3d 111 ). 110 Williams next challenges the trial court's decision to exclude testimony regarding child pornography on the victim's phone. 2014We will affirm a jury's verdict against a sufficiency of the evidence challenge "if upon reviewing the evidence and all inferences that can be reasonably drawn from it, [we conclude] that some evidence exists from which a reasonable jury could find that the elements of the crime had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Mills, 2012 UT App 367, ¶ 40 , 293 P.3d 1129 (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Hamilton, 2003 UT 22, ¶ 41 , 70 P.3d 111 ). 110 Williams next challenges the trial court's decision to exclude testimony regarding child pornography on the victim's phone. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Schroedergreen1 sentence2023See State v. Jok, 2021 UT 35, ¶ 18 , 493 P.3d 665 (noting that “a sufficiency of the evidence claim is effectively preserved by the nature of a bench trial and does not require making a specific motion”). 20190339-CA 9 2023 UT App 57 State v. Schroeder commenced by filing an information,” Utah R. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Lanegreen1 sentence2020See United States v. Lane, 474 U.S. 438 , 450 n.13 (1986) (agreeing “that the harmless-error inquiry is entirely distinct from a sufficiency-of-the-evidence inquiry”). ¶66 In the counterfactual scenario where T.J.’s testimony had been properly excluded, we agree with the State that the remaining evidence would have been sufficient to prove Leech’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Montoyagreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. . Sullivangreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Schreudergreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Hirschigreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Lowgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Fultongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ellis v. SOCIAL SERVICES DEPT., ETC.green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Wilsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Knollgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Romerogreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Hallettgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Carmell v. Texasgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Johnsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Bullockgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Spanish Fork City v. Bryangreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Boonegreen | 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. Nielsen
green
2 sentences2018When considering a sufficiency of the evidence claim, "we review the evidence and all inferences which may reasonably be drawn from it in the light most favorable to the verdict of the jury." State v. Nielsen , 2014 UT 10 , ¶ 46, 326 P.3d 645 (cleaned up). 2018When considering a sufficiency of the evidence claim, "we review the evidence and all inferences which may reasonably be drawn from it in the light most favorable to the verdict of the jury." State v. Nielsen , 2014 UT 10 , ¶ 46, 326 P.3d 645 (cleaned up). | 4 | 2015–2019 |
Ward v. McGarry
green
2 sentences2025Moreover, “for a sufficiency of the evidence challenge, we will reverse the fact finder’s verdict only when the evidence is sufficiently inconclusive or inherently improbable such that reasonable minds must have entertained a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime for which he or she was convicted.” State v. Hughes, 2024 UT App 168 , ¶ 26, 560 P.3d 188 (cleaned up), cert. denied, 564 P.3d 957 (Utah 2025). 2025“When a sufficiency of the evidence challenge is based on the inherent improbability of certain evidence, our analysis proceeds in two parts.” State v. Hughes, 2024 UT App 168 , ¶ 28, 560 P.3d 188 , cert. denied, 564 P.3d 957 (Utah 2025). | 3 | 2024–2025 |
State v. Hughes
green
2 sentences2025Moreover, “for a sufficiency of the evidence challenge, we will reverse the fact finder’s verdict only when the evidence is sufficiently inconclusive or inherently improbable such that reasonable minds must have entertained a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime for which he or she was convicted.” State v. Hughes, 2024 UT App 168 , ¶ 26, 560 P.3d 188 (cleaned up), cert. denied, 564 P.3d 957 (Utah 2025). 2025“When a sufficiency of the evidence challenge is based on the inherent improbability of certain evidence, our analysis proceeds in two parts.” State v. Hughes, 2024 UT App 168 , ¶ 28, 560 P.3d 188 , cert. denied, 564 P.3d 957 (Utah 2025). | 2 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Barnes
green
2 sentences2024“For a sufficiency of the evidence challenge, we will . . . reverse the fact finder’s verdict [only] when the evidence is sufficiently inconclusive or inherently improbable such that reasonable minds must have entertained a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime for which he or she was convicted.” State v. 20220640-CA 10 2024 UT App 168 State v. Hughes Barnes, 2023 UT App 148, ¶ 16 , 542 P.3d 108 (cleaned up), cert. denied, 544 P.3d 459 (Utah 2024). ¶27 Hughes also contends that he received constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel when Counsel introduced the full rec 2024“For a sufficiency of the evidence challenge, we will . . . reverse the fact finder’s verdict [only] when the evidence is sufficiently inconclusive or inherently improbable such that reasonable minds must have entertained a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime for which he or she was convicted.” State v. 20220640-CA 10 2024 UT App 168 State v. Hughes Barnes, 2023 UT App 148, ¶ 16 , 542 P.3d 108 (cleaned up), cert. denied, 544 P.3d 459 (Utah 2024). ¶27 Hughes also contends that he received constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel when Counsel introduced the full rec | 2 | 2023–2024 |
State v. Blais
green
2 sentences2022And where, as here, a defendant is claiming plain error in relation to his sufficiency of the evidence challenge, the defendant must also show that “the insufficiency was so obvious and fundamental that the [trial] court erred in submitting the case to the jury.” State v. Blais, 2020 UT App 4, ¶ 10 , 458 P.3d 1143 (quotation simplified). 2022And where, as here, a defendant is claiming plain error in relation to his sufficiency of the evidence challenge, the defendant must also show that “the insufficiency was so obvious and fundamental that the [trial] court erred in submitting the case to the jury.” State v. Blais, 2020 UT App 4, ¶ 10 , 458 P.3d 1143 (quotation simplified). | 2 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Carrera
green
2 sentences2022But importantly, “any touching, however slight, is sufficient to constitute the relevant element of the offense.” See id. § 76-5- 407(2)(b)(iii). ¶29 In assessing a sufficiency of the evidence challenge, even outside the plain error context, we will reverse only where “the evidence is sufficiently inconclusive or inherently improbable such that reasonable minds must have entertained a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime for which he or she was convicted.” State v. Jok, 2021 UT 35, ¶ 17 , 493 P.3d 665 (quotation simplified). 2022But importantly, “any touching, however slight, is sufficient to constitute the relevant element of the offense.” See id. § 76-5- 407(2)(b)(iii). ¶29 In assessing a sufficiency of the evidence challenge, even outside the plain error context, we will reverse only where “the evidence is sufficiently inconclusive or inherently improbable such that reasonable minds must have entertained a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime for which he or she was convicted.” State v. Jok, 2021 UT 35, ¶ 17 , 493 P.3d 665 (quotation simplified). | 2 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Eldredge
green
2 sentences2021Second, the rule safeguards against a defendant failing to make an objection with the strategy of ―enhanc[ing] the defendant's chances of acquittal and then, if that strategy fails, . . . claim[ing] on appeal that the Court should reverse.‖ Id. (alterations in original) (citation omitted). ¶22 In Holgate, we addressed the preservation requirements for a sufficiency of the evidence claim at a jury trial. 2000The preservation doctrine also prohibits parties from "foregoing those objections at trial as part of a 'strategy that counsel thinks will enhance the defendant's chances of acquittal and then, if that strategy fails, ... claim{[ingl on appeal that the Court should reverse.'" Id. (quoting State v. Bullock, 791 P.2d 155, 159 (Utah 1989)) (omission and alteration in original). 116 Neither of the above policy reasons supporting the preservation doctrine is present with a sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim. a. | 2 | 2000–2021 |
State v. Warden
green
2 sentences2014There was also testimony that the baby "would have had better than a 99 percent chance of survival" had the doctor acted "in accordance with the appropriate standard of care," id., and that the baby's parents would have taken it to the hospital had the doctor not advised them otherwise, id. at 1152-53 . ¶ 33 Warden, of course, involved a sufficiency of the evidence claim, not a request for a lesser-included-offense instruction, so Ruiz had a much lower evidentiary bar to clear than the defendant in that case. 2014There was also testimony that the baby "would have had better than a 99 percent chance of survival" had the doctor acted "in accordance with the appropriate standard of care," id., and that the baby's parents would have taken it to the hospital had the doctor not advised them otherwise, id. at 1152-53 . ¶ 33 Warden, of course, involved a sufficiency of the evidence claim, not a request for a lesser-included-offense instruction, so Ruiz had a much lower evidentiary bar to clear than the defendant in that case. | 2 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Pierce
green
2 sentences2026During that examination, Taylor described the time they felt the object that “could have been his thumb,” and when the nurse asked if the object “could . . . have been his penis,” Taylor answered affirmatively. ¶85 “On a sufficiency of the evidence claim we give substantial deference to the jury, and a sufficiency of the evidence inquiry ends if there is some evidence, including reasonable inferences, from which findings of all the requisite elements of the crime can reasonably be made.” State v. Pierce, 2022 UT 22, ¶ 32 , 511 P.3d 1164 (cleaned up). 2026During that examination, Taylor described the time they felt the object that “could have been his thumb,” and when the nurse asked if the object “could . . . have been his penis,” Taylor answered affirmatively. ¶85 “On a sufficiency of the evidence claim we give substantial deference to the jury, and a sufficiency of the evidence inquiry ends if there is some evidence, including reasonable inferences, from which findings of all the requisite elements of the crime can reasonably be made.” State v. Pierce, 2022 UT 22, ¶ 32 , 511 P.3d 1164 (cleaned up). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
In re I.C.
green
1 sentence2025Mother’s callous response to Child’s suicide attempt demonstrated a failure to protect as found by the juvenile court, given the “potentially fatal consequences” of the response. 20240667-CA 5 2025 UT App 37 In re I.C. standard.” State v. Torres-Orellana, 2024 UT 46, ¶ 42 , 562 P.3d 706 (cleaned up). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Torres-Orellana
green
2 sentences2025Mother’s callous response to Child’s suicide attempt demonstrated a failure to protect as found by the juvenile court, given the “potentially fatal consequences” of the response. 20240667-CA 5 2025 UT App 37 In re I.C. standard.” State v. Torres-Orellana, 2024 UT 46, ¶ 42 , 562 P.3d 706 (cleaned up). 2025Mother’s callous response to Child’s suicide attempt demonstrated a failure to protect as found by the juvenile court, given the “potentially fatal consequences” of the response. 20240667-CA 5 2025 UT App 37 In re I.C. standard.” State v. Torres-Orellana, 2024 UT 46, ¶ 42 , 562 P.3d 706 (cleaned up). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Craft
green
2 sentences2024“When a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is raised for the first time on appeal, there is no lower court ruling to review and we must decide whether the defendant was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel as a matter of law.” State v. Craft, 2017 UT App 87, ¶ 15 , 397 P.3d 889 (cleaned up). 2024“When a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is raised for the first time on appeal, there is no lower court ruling to review and we must decide whether the defendant was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel as a matter of law.” State v. Craft, 2017 UT App 87, ¶ 15 , 397 P.3d 889 (cleaned up). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
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. Mayorga
green
1 sentence2024Had the Robbins part of the claim been raised in the trial court, we would have reviewed the court’s 20230464-CA 9 2024 UT App 182 State v. Mayorga ruling on that point deferentially. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Guerro
green
2 sentences2023“When a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is raised for the first time on appeal, there is no lower court ruling to review and we must decide whether the defendant was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel as a matter of law.” State v. Guerro, 2021 UT App 136, ¶ 25 , 502 P.3d 338 (quotation simplified), cert. denied, 525 P.3d 1254 (Utah 2022). ¶18 Finally, Barnes has filed a motion, pursuant to rule 23B of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure, asking this court to remand the case to the trial court for supplementation of the record regarding additional claims of ineffective 2023“When a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is raised for the first time on appeal, there is no lower court ruling to review and we must decide whether the defendant was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel as a matter of law.” State v. Guerro, 2021 UT App 136, ¶ 25 , 502 P.3d 338 (quotation simplified), cert. denied, 525 P.3d 1254 (Utah 2022). ¶18 Finally, Barnes has filed a motion, pursuant to rule 23B of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure, asking this court to remand the case to the trial court for supplementation of the record regarding additional claims of ineffective | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Layton City v. Carr
green
2 sentences2021On the other hand, when a sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim is not preserved but is raised under the ineffective assistance of counsel exception to preservation, it “presents a question of law, and to prevail on [such] ineffective assistance of counsel claims, [the defendant] must demonstrate that counsel’s failure to raise the sufficiency issues to the trial court’s attention was both objectively deficient and prejudicial.” State v. Heath, 2019 UT App 186, ¶ 25 , 453 P.3d 955 (cleaned up). ¶19 Darnstaedt further argues that his counsel was ineffective because he “(1) did not ensure that the j 2021On the other hand, when a sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim is not preserved but is raised under the ineffective assistance of counsel exception to preservation, it “presents a question of law, and to prevail on [such] ineffective assistance of counsel claims, [the defendant] must demonstrate that counsel’s failure to raise the sufficiency issues to the trial court’s attention was both objectively deficient and prejudicial.” State v. Heath, 2019 UT App 186, ¶ 25 , 453 P.3d 955 (cleaned up). ¶19 Darnstaedt further argues that his counsel was ineffective because he “(1) did not ensure that the j | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Heath
green
2 sentences2021On the other hand, when a sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim is not preserved but is raised under the ineffective assistance of counsel exception to preservation, it “presents a question of law, and to prevail on [such] ineffective assistance of counsel claims, [the defendant] must demonstrate that counsel’s failure to raise the sufficiency issues to the trial court’s attention was both objectively deficient and prejudicial.” State v. Heath, 2019 UT App 186, ¶ 25 , 453 P.3d 955 (cleaned up). ¶19 Darnstaedt further argues that his counsel was ineffective because he “(1) did not ensure that the j 2021On the other hand, when a sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim is not preserved but is raised under the ineffective assistance of counsel exception to preservation, it “presents a question of law, and to prevail on [such] ineffective assistance of counsel claims, [the defendant] must demonstrate that counsel’s failure to raise the sufficiency issues to the trial court’s attention was both objectively deficient and prejudicial.” State v. Heath, 2019 UT App 186, ¶ 25 , 453 P.3d 955 (cleaned up). ¶19 Darnstaedt further argues that his counsel was ineffective because he “(1) did not ensure that the j | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Menzies v. Galetka
green
2 sentences2021But we grant deference to the trial court on findings of fact and will ―overturn the district court‘s findings of fact only if they are clearly erroneous.‖4 Menzies v. Galetka, 2006 UT 81, ¶ 58 , 150 P.3d 480 . ¶17 Regarding a sufficiency of the evidence challenge, we will only reverse the fact finder‘s verdict when ―the evidence is sufficiently inconclusive or inherently improbable such that reasonable minds must have entertained a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime for which he or she was convicted.‖ State v. Robbins, 2009 UT 23, ¶ 14 , 210 P.3d 288 (citation omitted). 2021But we grant deference to the trial court on findings of fact and will ―overturn the district court‘s findings of fact only if they are clearly erroneous.‖4 Menzies v. Galetka, 2006 UT 81, ¶ 58 , 150 P.3d 480 . ¶17 Regarding a sufficiency of the evidence challenge, we will only reverse the fact finder‘s verdict when ―the evidence is sufficiently inconclusive or inherently improbable such that reasonable minds must have entertained a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime for which he or she was convicted.‖ State v. Robbins, 2009 UT 23, ¶ 14 , 210 P.3d 288 (citation omitted). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| Salt Lake City v. Carrera green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Bagnes green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Hatfield
green
1 sentence2020Hatfield received credit for time served for these three counts. 4 Cite as: 2020 UT 1 Opinion of the Court reverse only when it is apparent that there is not sufficient competent evidence as to each element of the crime charged.” State v. Bagnes, 2014 UT 4, ¶ 10 , 322 P.3d 719 (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Jones green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. MacNeill green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Blaisdell v. Dentrix Dental Systems, Inc. green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Noor green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| State v. Larsen green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| State v. Rimmasch green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| State v. Butt green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| State v. Winfield green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| State v. Boyd green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Diversified Holdings, L.C. v. Turner green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Allred Ex Rel. Jensen v. Allred green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| Swayne v. L.D.S. Social Services green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| United States v. Bagley green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Strickler v. Greene green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| State v. Colwell green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| State v. Graves green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.