7 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Ramirezgreen2 sentences2020Cf. Ramirez, 817 P.2d at 784 (declining to engage in “separate Biggers federal analysis” in light of the court’s conclusion that the state due process clause “is certainly as stringent as, if not more stringent than, the federal analysis”). 2002See id. at 780 . 126 With respect to the first step of the state due process analysis, for the reasons outlined previously, see supra 124, we conclude that the procedural actions taken by Officer Merino in assembling and presenting the photo array were not impermissi-bly suggestive. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Delislegreen2 sentences2017See, e.g., State v. Delisle, 162 Vt. 293 , 648 A.2d 632, 642-43 (1994) ("adopt[ing] as the state constitutional standard” a three-factor test under the state due process clause and concluding that the loss of evidence did not violate defendant's due process rights because he cross-examined a medical examiner who provided the defendant favorable testimony regarding the missing evidence); Thorne v. Dep’t of Public Safety, 774 P.2d 1326, 1330 (Alaska 1989) (holding that the appellant’s "due process rights at the revocation hearing were violated by the state’s failure to preserve the videotape”). 2017See, e.g., State v. Delisle, 648 A.2d 632 , 642–43 (Vt. 1994) (“adopt[ing] as the state constitutional standard” a three-factor test under the state due process clause and concluding that the loss of evidence did not violate defendant’s due process rights because he cross- examined a medical examiner who provided the defendant favorable testimony regarding the missing evidence); Thorne v. Dep’t of Public Safety, 774 P.2d 1326, 1330 (Alaska 1989) (holding that the appellant’s “due process rights at the revocation hearing were violated by the state’s failure to preserve the videotape”). 41 Tiede | 2 | 2 |
Thorne v. Department of Public Safetygreen2 sentences2017See, e.g., State v. Delisle, 162 Vt. 293 , 648 A.2d 632, 642-43 (1994) ("adopt[ing] as the state constitutional standard” a three-factor test under the state due process clause and concluding that the loss of evidence did not violate defendant's due process rights because he cross-examined a medical examiner who provided the defendant favorable testimony regarding the missing evidence); Thorne v. Dep’t of Public Safety, 774 P.2d 1326, 1330 (Alaska 1989) (holding that the appellant’s "due process rights at the revocation hearing were violated by the state’s failure to preserve the videotape”). 2017See, e.g., State v. Delisle, 648 A.2d 632 , 642–43 (Vt. 1994) (“adopt[ing] as the state constitutional standard” a three-factor test under the state due process clause and concluding that the loss of evidence did not violate defendant’s due process rights because he cross- examined a medical examiner who provided the defendant favorable testimony regarding the missing evidence); Thorne v. Dep’t of Public Safety, 774 P.2d 1326, 1330 (Alaska 1989) (holding that the appellant’s “due process rights at the revocation hearing were violated by the state’s failure to preserve the videotape”). 41 Tiede | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Hendersongreen2 sentences2007Safety, 774 P.2d 1326, 1331 (Alaska 1989) (construing the due process clause of the Alaska Constitution to not require a showing of bad faith); State v. Morales, 232 Conn. 707 , 657 A.2d 585, 594-95 (1995) (concluding that the state due process clause does not have the same meaning as the federal due process clause and that it requires a balancing of the materiality of missing evidence, the reasons for its unavailability, the likelihood of mistake by witnesses or juries, and the prejudice to the defendant); Hammond v. State, 569 A.2d 81, 87 (Del.1989) (noting that rules regarding preservation 2007Safety, 774 P.2d 1326, 1331 (Alaska 1989) (construing the due process clause of the Alaska Constitution to not require a showing of bad faith); State v. Morales, 232 Conn. 707 , 657 A.2d 585, 594-95 (1995) (concluding that the state due process clause does not have the same meaning as the federal due process clause and that it requires a balancing of the materiality of missing evidence, the reasons for its unavailability, the likelihood of mistake by witnesses or juries, and the prejudice to the defendant); Hammond v. State, 569 A.2d 81, 87 (Del.1989) (noting that rules regarding preservation | 1 | 1 |
State v. Moralesgreen2 sentences2007Safety, 774 P.2d 1326, 1331 (Alaska 1989) (construing the due process clause of the Alaska Constitution to not require a showing of bad faith); State v. Morales, 232 Conn. 707 , 657 A.2d 585, 594-95 (1995) (concluding that the state due process clause does not have the same meaning as the federal due process clause and that it requires a balancing of the materiality of missing evidence, the reasons for its unavailability, the likelihood of mistake by witnesses or juries, and the prejudice to the defendant); Hammond v. State, 569 A.2d 81, 87 (Del.1989) (noting that rules regarding preservation 2007Safety, 774 P.2d 1326, 1331 (Alaska 1989) (construing the due process clause of the Alaska Constitution to not require a showing of bad faith); State v. Morales, 232 Conn. 707 , 657 A.2d 585, 594-95 (1995) (concluding that the state due process clause does not have the same meaning as the federal due process clause and that it requires a balancing of the materiality of missing evidence, the reasons for its unavailability, the likelihood of mistake by witnesses or juries, and the prejudice to the defendant); Hammond v. State, 569 A.2d 81, 87 (Del.1989) (noting that rules regarding preservation | 1 | 1 |
State v. Osakalumigreen2 sentences2007Safety, 774 P.2d 1326, 1331 (Alaska 1989) (construing the due process clause of the Alaska Constitution to not require a showing of bad faith); State v. Morales, 232 Conn. 707 , 657 A.2d 585, 594-95 (1995) (concluding that the state due process clause does not have the same meaning as the federal due process clause and that it requires a balancing of the materiality of missing evidence, the reasons for its unavailability, the likelihood of mistake by witnesses or juries, and the prejudice to the defendant); Hammond v. State, 569 A.2d 81, 87 (Del.1989) (noting that rules regarding preservation 2007Safety, 774 P.2d 1326, 1331 (Alaska 1989) (construing the due process clause of the Alaska Constitution to not require a showing of bad faith); State v. Morales, 232 Conn. 707 , 657 A.2d 585, 594-95 (1995) (concluding that the state due process clause does not have the same meaning as the federal due process clause and that it requires a balancing of the materiality of missing evidence, the reasons for its unavailability, the likelihood of mistake by witnesses or juries, and the prejudice to the defendant); Hammond v. State, 569 A.2d 81, 87 (Del.1989) (noting that rules regarding preservation | 1 | 1 |
Hammond v. Stategreen2 sentences2007Safety, 774 P.2d 1326, 1331 (Alaska 1989) (construing the due process clause of the Alaska Constitution to not require a showing of bad faith); State v. Morales, 232 Conn. 707 , 657 A.2d 585, 594-95 (1995) (concluding that the state due process clause does not have the same meaning as the federal due process clause and that it requires a balancing of the materiality of missing evidence, the reasons for its unavailability, the likelihood of mistake by witnesses or juries, and the prejudice to the defendant); Hammond v. State, 569 A.2d 81, 87 (Del.1989) (noting that rules regarding preservation 2007Safety, 774 P.2d 1326, 1331 (Alaska 1989) (construing the due process clause of the Alaska Constitution to not require a showing of bad faith); State v. Morales, 232 Conn. 707 , 657 A.2d 585, 594-95 (1995) (concluding that the state due process clause does not have the same meaning as the federal due process clause and that it requires a balane-ing of the materiality of missing evidence, the reasons for its unavailability, the likelihood of mistake by witnesses or juries, and the prejudice to the defendant); Hammond v. State, 569 A.2d 81, 87 (Del.1989) (noting that rules regarding preservation | 1 | 1 |
State v. Matafeogreen2 sentences2007Safety, 774 P.2d 1326, 1331 (Alaska 1989) (construing the due process clause of the Alaska Constitution to not require a showing of bad faith); State v. Morales, 232 Conn. 707 , 657 A.2d 585, 594-95 (1995) (concluding that the state due process clause does not have the same meaning as the federal due process clause and that it requires a balancing of the materiality of missing evidence, the reasons for its unavailability, the likelihood of mistake by witnesses or juries, and the prejudice to the defendant); Hammond v. State, 569 A.2d 81, 87 (Del.1989) (noting that rules regarding preservation 2007Safety, 774 P.2d 1326, 1331 (Alaska 1989) (construing the due process clause of the Alaska Constitution to not require a showing of bad faith); State v. Morales, 232 Conn. 707 , 657 A.2d 585, 594-95 (1995) (concluding that the state due process clause does not have the same meaning as the federal due process clause and that it requires a balancing of the materiality of missing evidence, the reasons for its unavailability, the likelihood of mistake by witnesses or juries, and the prejudice to the defendant); Hammond v. State, 569 A.2d 81, 87 (Del.1989) (noting that rules regarding preservation | 1 | 1 |
State v. Fergusongreen2 sentences2007Safety, 774 P.2d 1326, 1331 (Alaska 1989) (construing the due process clause of the Alaska Constitution to not require a showing of bad faith); State v. Morales, 232 Conn. 707 , 657 A.2d 585, 594-95 (1995) (concluding that the state due process clause does not have the same meaning as the federal due process clause and that it requires a balancing of the materiality of missing evidence, the reasons for its unavailability, the likelihood of mistake by witnesses or juries, and the prejudice to the defendant); Hammond v. State, 569 A.2d 81, 87 (Del.1989) (noting that rules regarding preservation 2007Safety, 774 P.2d 1326, 1331 (Alaska 1989) (construing the due process clause of the Alaska Constitution to not require a showing of bad faith); State v. Morales, 232 Conn. 707 , 657 A.2d 585, 594-95 (1995) (concluding that the state due process clause does not have the same meaning as the federal due process clause and that it requires a balane-ing of the materiality of missing evidence, the reasons for its unavailability, the likelihood of mistake by witnesses or juries, and the prejudice to the defendant); Hammond v. State, 569 A.2d 81, 87 (Del.1989) (noting that rules regarding preservation | 1 | 1 |
Labrum v. Utah State Board of Pardonsgreen2 sentences1996In Labrum v. State Board of Pardons, 870 P.2d 902, 910-11 (Utah 1993), we held that criminal parole grant hearings are legally different from other parole proceedings, that the original parole grant proceeding is essentially a sentencing proceeding, and that the state due process clause applies thereto. 1996In Labrum v. State Board of Pardons, 870 P.2d 902, 910-11 (Utah 1993), we held that criminal parole grant hearings are legally different from other parole proceedings, that the original parole grant proceeding is essentially a sentencing proceeding, and that the state due process clause applies thereto. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Neese v. Utah Bd. of Pardons & Parole
green
2 sentences2019And I would stop short of providing the guidance presented by the court in paragraphs 37– 48.89 _____________________________________________________________ 87 Neese v. Utah Bd. of Pardons & Parole, 2017 UT 89, ¶ 67 , 416 P.3d 663 (explaining that we “should look to the original meaning of the Utah Constitution” in interpreting the state due process clause); Am. 2019And I would stop short of providing the guidance presented by the court in paragraphs 37– 48.89 _____________________________________________________________ 87 Neese v. Utah Bd. of Pardons & Parole, 2017 UT 89, ¶ 67 , 416 P.3d 663 (explaining that we “should look to the original meaning of the Utah Constitution” in interpreting the state due process clause); Am. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Zimmerman v. Univ. of Utah & Dr. William McMahon
green
2 sentences2019Bush v. City of S. Salt Lake, 2006 UT 40, ¶ 66 , 140 P.3d 1235 (interpreting the Utah free speech clause not in terms of our own policy arguments or modern preferences but in light of originalist inquiry; explaining that “[i]t is not our place” to “substitut[e] our own value judgment for that of the people of Utah when they drafted and ratified the constitution”). 88 See Zimmerman v. Univ. of Utah, 2018 UT 1, ¶ 19 , 417 P.3d 78 (refusing to reach state constitutional questions because parties failed to provide any briefing on the original meaning of the constitutional provision). 89I do not qu 2019Bush v. City of S. Salt Lake, 2006 UT 40, ¶ 66 , 140 P.3d 1235 (interpreting the Utah free speech clause not in terms of our own policy arguments or modern preferences but in light of originalist inquiry; explaining that “[i]t is not our place” to “substitut[e] our own value judgment for that of the people of Utah when they drafted and ratified the constitution”). 88 See Zimmerman v. Univ. of Utah, 2018 UT 1, ¶ 19 , 417 P.3d 78 (refusing to reach state constitutional questions because parties failed to provide any briefing on the original meaning of the constitutional provision). 89I do not qu | 1 | 2019–2019 |
American Bush v. City of South Salt Lake
green
2 sentences2019Bush v. City of S. Salt Lake, 2006 UT 40, ¶ 66 , 140 P.3d 1235 (interpreting the Utah free speech clause not in terms of our own policy arguments or modern preferences but in light of originalist inquiry; explaining that “[i]t is not our place” to “substitut[e] our own value judgment for that of the people of Utah when they drafted and ratified the constitution”). 88 See Zimmerman v. Univ. of Utah, 2018 UT 1, ¶ 19 , 417 P.3d 78 (refusing to reach state constitutional questions because parties failed to provide any briefing on the original meaning of the constitutional provision). 89I do not qu 2019Bush v. City of S. Salt Lake, 2006 UT 40, ¶ 66 , 140 P.3d 1235 (interpreting the Utah free speech clause not in terms of our own policy arguments or modern preferences but in light of originalist inquiry; explaining that “[i]t is not our place” to “substitut[e] our own value judgment for that of the people of Utah when they drafted and ratified the constitution”). 88 See Zimmerman v. Univ. of Utah, 2018 UT 1, ¶ 19 , 417 P.3d 78 (refusing to reach state constitutional questions because parties failed to provide any briefing on the original meaning of the constitutional provision). 89I do not qu | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Tiedemann
green
2 sentences2017Tiedemann, 2007 UT 49, ¶ 44 , 162 P.3d 1106 . . 2017See, e.g., State v. Delisle, 648 A.2d 632 , 642–43 (Vt. 1994) (“adopt[ing] as the state constitutional standard” a three-factor test under the state due process clause and concluding that the loss of evidence did not violate defendant’s due process rights because he cross- examined a medical examiner who provided the defendant favorable testimony regarding the missing evidence); Thorne v. Dep’t of Public Safety, 774 P.2d 1326, 1330 (Alaska 1989) (holding that the appellant’s “due process rights at the revocation hearing were violated by the state’s failure to preserve the videotape”). 41 Tiede | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. DeJesus
green
1 sentence2017See, e.g., State v. Delisle, 648 A.2d 632 , 642–43 (Vt. 1994) (“adopt[ing] as the state constitutional standard” a three-factor test under the state due process clause and concluding that the loss of evidence did not violate defendant’s due process rights because he cross- examined a medical examiner who provided the defendant favorable testimony regarding the missing evidence); Thorne v. Dep’t of Public Safety, 774 P.2d 1326, 1330 (Alaska 1989) (holding that the appellant’s “due process rights at the revocation hearing were violated by the state’s failure to preserve the videotape”). 41 Tiede | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Guzman
green
2 sentences2014I, § 7 (“No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law ”). ¶ 41 In considering the admissibility of an eyewitness identification, the trial court has the responsibility “to initially screen, under a totality of the circumstances standard, the eyewitness testimony so that it is sufficiently reliable as not to offend a defendant’s right to due process.” State v. Guzman, 2006 UT 12, ¶ 21 , 133 P.3d 363 . 2014I, § 7 (“No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law ”). ¶ 41 In considering the admissibility of an eyewitness identification, the trial court has the responsibility “to initially screen, under a totality of the circumstances standard, the eyewitness testimony so that it is sufficiently reliable as not to offend a defendant’s right to due process.” State v. Guzman, 2006 UT 12, ¶ 21 , 133 P.3d 363 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.