supplemental jury instruction (Utah) · Go Syfert
← Utah issues

supplemental jury instruction in Utah

7 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1998–2026 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.

Followed or applied (7)

CaseFollowedCited
State v. Gollahergreen
utahctapp · 2020 · cited in 1 Utah opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022
2 sentences

2022See State v. Gollaher, 2020 UT App 131, ¶ 20 , 474 P.3d 1018 .

2022See State v. Gollaher, 2020 UT App 131, ¶ 20 , 474 P.3d 1018 .

11
United States v. United States Gypsum Co.green
scotus · 1978 · cited in 1 Utah opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012
2 sentences

2012See, e.g., United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 438 U.S. 422, 460 , 98 S.Ct. 2864 , 57 L.Ed.2d 854 (1978) (finding prejudice when the judge met privately with the foreman of the jury and gave what amounted to a supplemental jury instruction}. .

2012See, e.g., United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 438 U.S. 422, 460 , 98 S.Ct. 2864 , 57 L.Ed.2d 854 (1978) (finding prejudice when the judge met privately with the foreman of the jury and gave what amounted to a supplemental jury instruction}. .

11
Oliver French, Jr. v. Kurt Jonesgreen
ca6 · 2003 · cited in 1 Utah opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012
1 sentence

2012See, eg., Caver v. Straub, 349 F.3d 340 , 349 n. 6 (6th Cir.2003) (finding a critical stage when the jury was reinstructed "on certain elements of the offense after they had deliberated"); French v. Jones, 332 F.3d 430, 436, 438 (6th Cir.2003) (finding a critical stage when the judge gave a supplemental jury instruction that was not the standard deadlock instruction). .

11
Robert Lee Caver v. Dennis M. Straub, Wardengreen
ca6 · 2004 · cited in 1 Utah opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012
1 sentence

2012See, eg., Caver v. Straub, 349 F.3d 340 , 349 n. 6 (6th Cir.2003) (finding a critical stage when the jury was reinstructed "on certain elements of the offense after they had deliberated"); French v. Jones, 332 F.3d 430, 436, 438 (6th Cir.2003) (finding a critical stage when the judge gave a supplemental jury instruction that was not the standard deadlock instruction). .

11
Jimmy Ray Valentine (04-2116) Kenneth Jerome Valentine (05-1877) v. United Statesgreen
ca6 · 2007 · cited in 1 Utah opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012
1 sentence

2012Valentine v. United States, 488 F.3d 325, 335 (6th Cir.2007). .

11
Rushen v. Spaingreen
scotus · 1983 · cited in 1 Utah opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012
2 sentences

2012Rushen, 464 U.S. at 117, 119 , 104 S.Ct. 453 (explaining that the Court "emphatically disagree[d]" with the Ninth Circuit's conclusion that "unrecorded ex parte communication between trial judge and juror can never be harmless error"). .

2012Rushen, 464 U.S. at 117, 119 , 104 S.Ct. 453 (explaining that the Court "emphatically disagree[d]" with the Ninth Circuit's conclusion that "unrecorded ex parte communication between trial judge and juror can never be harmless error"). .

11
Laws v. Blanding Citygreen
utahctapp · 1995 · cited in 1 Utah opinions naming this issue, 1998–1998
1 sentence

1998“Determining the propriety of jury instructions presents a question of law, which we review under a correction of error standard.” Laws v. Blanding City, 893 P.2d 1083, 1084 (Utah Ct.App.), cert. denied, 910 P.2d 425 (Utah 1995).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

CaseCitedYears
cluster 10856412 green
·
1 sentence

2026Because we conclude that the erroneous instruction harmed Paramoure, we reverse his conviction and remand the matter for a new trial. 20240381-CA 11 2026 UT App 74

12026–2026
State v. Scott green
utahctapp · 2017
1 sentence

2017The threat’s content is not included in the record on appeal, and we do not rely upon it in our analysis. 20140995-CA 5 2017 UT App 74 State v. Scott ‚absolute impasse‛ meant that the jury could not ‚continu*e+ to deliberate without doing violence to their individual judgment.‛ The court denied the motion for a mistrial and instead gave a supplemental jury instruction, which asked the jury to ‚continue [its] deliberations in an effort to agree upon a verdict.‛ The instruction stated, in part, This trial represents a significant expenditure of time and effort by you, the court, the parties, and

12017–2017
State v. Stringham green
utahctapp · 2001
2 sentences

2015"Failure to give requested jury instructions constitutes reversible error only if their omission tends to mislead the jury to the prejudice of the complaining party or insufficiently or erroneously advises the jury on the law." State v. Stringham, 2001 UT App 13, ¶ 17 , 17 P.3d 1153 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

2015"Failure to give requested jury instructions constitutes reversible error only if their omission tends to mislead the jury to the prejudice of the complaining party or insufficiently or erroneously advises the jury on the law." State v. Stringham, 2001 UT App 13, ¶ 17 , 17 P.3d 1153 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

12015–2015
State v. Tolano green
utahctapp · 2001
2 sentences

2013Davis also relies on State v. Tolano, 2001 UT App 37 , 19 P.3d 400 .

2013Davis also relies on State v. Tolano, 2001 UT App 37 , 19 P.3d 400 .

12013–2013
Allen v. United States green
· 1896
2 sentences

1998As first recognized by the United States Supreme Court in Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 , 17 S.Ct. 154 , 41 L.Ed. 528 (1896), when a jury informs the trial court that they are having difficulty agreeing, the court may underscore the case’s importance, urge the jury to reach an agreement, and send them back for further deliberation.

1998As first recognized by the United States Supreme Court in Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 , 17 S.Ct. 154 , 41 L.Ed. 528 (1896), when a jury informs the trial court that they are having difficulty agreeing, the court may underscore the case’s importance, urge the jury to reach an agreement, and send them back for further deliberation.

11998–1998

Where else courts name it

TX 93 (1993–2025) NY 21 (1994–2025) MI 19 (1996–2020) MD 13 (1982–2021) CO 12 (2010–2025) IL 9 (1995–2020) OH 9 (1989–2025) UT 7 (1998–2026) TN 7 (2009–2024) RI 7 (1995–2025) SC 7 (1983–2023) DC 6 (1978–2013) VT 5 (2002–2020) MA 5 (2006–2025) WA 4 (2011–2019) DE 4 (2006–2026) IA 3 (2017–2026) PA 3 (2016–2019) CA 2 (2007–2026) AK 2 (2019–2023) MO 2 (2024–2025) FL 2 (1991–1999) MS 2 (1994–2025) NJ 2 (2017–2020) VI 2 (2009–2012) WI 2 (1996–2011) VA 2 (1998–1999) AL 2 (1995–1997) CT 2 (2011–2011) AZ 2 (2018–2025)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check