articulation rule in Utah

2025The defendant insurer argues that because the district court concluded that it had cancelled Weston’s 20 Cite as: 2025 UT 42 Opinion of the Court policy prior to the car accident there was no insurance policy in place when the accident occurred and therefore no contractual duty to defend could have arisen.

2025The defendant insurer argues that because the district court concluded that it had cancelled Weston’s 20 Cite as: 2025 UT 42 Opinion of the Court policy prior to the car accident there was no insurance policy in place when the accident occurred and therefore no contractual duty to defend could have arisen.

2021“And more fundamentally, ‘appellate review of evidentiary decisions’ should only ‘assess whether the district judge made an error in admitting or excluding the evidence in question’ and should thus affirm so long as the trial court made the ‘right decision,’ even if it was for ‘a mistaken reason.’” See State v. Wright, 2021 UT App 7, ¶ 41 , 481 P.3d 479 (quoting State v. Thornton, 2017 UT 9, ¶¶ 51, 53 , 391 P.3d 1016 ). ¶43 Under the correct articulation of the rule 403 standard, we have no trouble concluding that the district court acted within its discretion in excluding the evidence of the

2021“And more fundamentally, ‘appellate review of evidentiary decisions’ should only ‘assess whether the district judge made an error in admitting or excluding the evidence in question’ and should thus affirm so long as the trial court made the ‘right decision,’ even if it was for ‘a mistaken reason.’” See State v. Wright, 2021 UT App 7, ¶ 41 , 481 P.3d 479 (quoting State v. Thornton, 2017 UT 9, ¶¶ 51, 53 , 391 P.3d 1016 ). ¶43 Under the correct articulation of the rule 403 standard, we have no trouble concluding that the district court acted within its discretion in excluding the evidence of the

2021In dissent, Justice Zimmerman expressed puzzlement over the majority’s articulation of the standard of review, observing that “[t]he trial court made no factual findings on disputed evidence in determining that the standard for waiver was met, and there was no dispute as to the relevant facts.” Chandler v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Utah, 833 P.2d 356 , 361–62 (Utah 1992) (Zimmerman, J., concurring and dissenting).

2021We went on to “clarify that the proper articulation of our standard is the one used herein—‘likely to evade review,’” and expressly “disavow any language in our prior cases stating otherwise.” Id. (emphasis added).

2021In Gardner, we say that the State acknowledged that ―this court retains constitutional authority, even when a petition is procedurally barred, to determine whether denying relief would result in an egregious injustice.‖ 2010 UT 46, ¶ 93 .

2015While in some instances the criminal matter could resolve quickly and thus render a freeze order incapable of review, there will no doubt also be cases where judicial review is possible while the controversy is live, as we explain below. 5 Local 382, 2012 UT 75 , ¶¶ 29−30. 6 See, e.g., McBride v. Utah State Bar, 2010 UT 60, ¶¶ 13, 15 , 242 P.3d 769 (internal quotation marks omitted). 7 See, e.g., Navajo Nation v. State (In re Adoption L.O.), 2012 UT 23, ¶ 10 , 282 P.3d 977 (“The types of issues likely to evade review are those that are inherently short in duration so that by the time the issue

2015While in some instances the criminal matter could resolve quickly and thus render a freeze order incapable of review, there will no doubt also be cases where judicial review is possible while the controversy is live, as we explain below. 5 Local 382, 2012 UT 75 , ¶¶ 29−30. 6 See, e.g., McBride v. Utah State Bar, 2010 UT 60, ¶¶ 13, 15 , 242 P.3d 769 (internal quotation marks omitted). 7 See, e.g., Navajo Nation v. State (In re Adoption L.O.), 2012 UT 23, ¶ 10 , 282 P.3d 977 (“The types of issues likely to evade review are those that are inherently short in duration so that by the time the issue

2015Dist., 2013 UT App 205, ¶ 40 (alteration in original) (quoting McKean, 706 P.2d at 602 ). 46 Id. ¶ 43 (emphasis added). 47 Id. 48 Id. ¶ 44. 49 2013 UT App 301, ¶ 12 (internal quotation marks omitted). 14 Cite as: 2015 UT 78 Opinion of the Court McKesson for this articulation of the rule.

2015While in some instances the criminal matter could resolve quickly and thus render a freeze order incapable of review, there will no doubt also be cases where judicial review is possible while the controversy is live, as we explain below. 5 Local 382, 2012 UT 75 , ¶¶ 29−30. 6 See, e.g., McBride v. Utah State Bar, 2010 UT 60, ¶¶ 13, 15 , 242 P.3d 769 (internal quotation marks omitted). 7 See, e.g., Navajo Nation v. State (In re Adoption L.O.), 2012 UT 23, ¶ 10 , 282 P.3d 977 (“The types of issues likely to evade review are those that are inherently short in duration so that by the time the issue

2015While in some instances the criminal matter could resolve quickly and thus render a freeze order incapable of review, there will no doubt also be cases where judicial review is possible while the controversy is live, as we explain below. 5 Local 382, 2012 UT 75 , ¶¶ 29−30. 6 See, e.g., McBride v. Utah State Bar, 2010 UT 60, ¶¶ 13, 15 , 242 P.3d 769 (internal quotation marks omitted). 7 See, e.g., Navajo Nation v. State (In re Adoption L.O.), 2012 UT 23, ¶ 10 , 282 P.3d 977 (“The types of issues likely to evade review are those that are inherently short in duration so that by the time the issue

2015Dist., 2013 UT App 205, ¶ 40 (alteration in original) (quoting McKean, 706 P.2d at 602 ). 46 Id. ¶ 43 (emphasis added). 47 Id. 48 Id. ¶ 44. 49 2013 UT App 301, ¶ 12 (internal quotation marks omitted). 14 Cite as: 2015 UT 78 Opinion of the Court McKesson for this articulation of the rule.