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.
7 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2024 2 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. Hardinggreen2 sentences2006And where “there is no reasonable basis in the evidence to support the defense or its essential components, it is not error for the trial judge to ... refuse to instruct the jury as to the defense.” State v. Harding, 635 P.2d 33, 34 (Utah 1981); see also State v. Brown, 607 P.2d 261, 265-66 (Utah 1980) (affirming trial court’s refusal to give self-defense instruction where there was “no credible evidence that defendant might have been justified in using deadly force to protect himself or that he reasonably believed himself to be in danger”). ¶ 22 Here, the murder causation instruction actually 2003However, although Defendant cites State v. Harding, 635 P.2d 33 (Utah 1981) to support his claim, he fails to acknowledge the court’s statement that if “there is no reasonable basis in the evidence to support the defense or its essential components, it is not error for the trial judge to either refuse to instruct the jury as to the defense, or to instruct them to disregard it.” Id. at 34 . | 2 | 3 |
State v. Browngreen2 sentences2006And where “there is no reasonable basis in the evidence to support the defense or its essential components, it is not error for the trial judge to ... refuse to instruct the jury as to the defense.” State v. Harding, 635 P.2d 33, 34 (Utah 1981); see also State v. Brown, 607 P.2d 261, 265-66 (Utah 1980) (affirming trial court’s refusal to give self-defense instruction where there was “no credible evidence that defendant might have been justified in using deadly force to protect himself or that he reasonably believed himself to be in danger”). ¶ 22 Here, the murder causation instruction actually 1981State v. Eagle, Utah, 611 P.2d 1211 (1980); State v. Brown, Utah, 607 P.2d 261 (1980). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Torresgreen1 sentence2014The trial court denied Rupert's request for a self-defense instruction after concluding that there was no basis in the evidence to support the defense. 113 "Each party is ... entitled to have the jury instructed on the law applicable to its theory of the case if there is any reasonable basis in the evidence to justify it." State v. Torres, 619 P.2d 694, 695 (Utah 1980). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Pankhurst v. Pankhurst
green
2 sentences2024“A party challenging a district court’s factual findings on appeal bears a heavy burden of persuasion in demonstrating that the court’s findings are clearly erroneous.” Pankhurst v. Pankhurst, 2022 UT App 36, ¶ 15 , 508 P.3d 612 (cleaned up). 2024“A party challenging a district court’s factual findings on appeal bears a heavy burden of persuasion in demonstrating that the court’s findings are clearly erroneous.” Pankhurst v. Pankhurst, 2022 UT App 36, ¶ 15 , 508 P.3d 612 (cleaned up). | 2 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Berriel
green
2 sentences2014We afford significant deference to "[al district court's refusal to instruct the jury on a defendant's theory of the case" when its decision is based on its determination that "the record evidence, viewed in its totality," does not support "the defendant's theory of the case." State v. Berriel, 2013 UT 19, ¶ 9 , 299 P.3d 1133 . *959 T 14 "A person is justified in threatening or using foree against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that force or a threat of force is necessary to defend the person or a third person against another person's imminent use of unlawfu 2014We afford significant deference to "[al district court's refusal to instruct the jury on a defendant's theory of the case" when its decision is based on its determination that "the record evidence, viewed in its totality," does not support "the defendant's theory of the case." State v. Berriel, 2013 UT 19, ¶ 9 , 299 P.3d 1133 . *959 T 14 "A person is justified in threatening or using foree against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that force or a threat of force is necessary to defend the person or a third person against another person's imminent use of unlawfu | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Eagle
green
1 sentence1981State v. Eagle, Utah, 611 P.2d 1211 (1980); State v. Brown, Utah, 607 P.2d 261 (1980). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.