reasonable likelihood error in Utah

2025Corp., 820 P.2d 482, 489 (Utah Ct. App. 1991) (“On appeal, the appellant has the burden of demonstrating an error was prejudicial—that there is a reasonable likelihood that the error affected the outcome of the proceedings.” (cleaned up)).

2025Corp., 820 P.2d 482, 489 (Utah Ct. App. 1991) (“On appeal, the appellant has the burden of demonstrating an error was prejudicial—that there is a reasonable likelihood that the error affected the outcome of the proceedings.” (quotation simplified)), aff’d, 862 P.2d 1342 (Utah 1993). 20230483-CA 8 2025 UT App 43 Nelson v. Nelson not render the totality of the evidence insufficient.

2025Corp., 820 P.2d 482, 489 (Utah Ct. App. 1991) (“On appeal, the appellant has the burden of demonstrating an error was prejudicial—that there is a reasonable likelihood that the error affected the outcome of the proceedings.” (quotation simplified)), aff’d, 862 P.2d 1342 (Utah 1993). 20230483-CA 8 2025 UT App 43 Nelson v. Nelson not render the totality of the evidence insufficient.

2013"However, to reverse a trial verdict, [we} must find not a mere possibility, but a reasonable likelihood that the error affected the result." Id. at 1347 ; see also Utah R.Grim.

1992Rather, we will reverse if there is a reasonable likelihood that the error affected the outcome of the proceedings, State v. Verde, 770 P.2d 116, 120 (Utah 1989), or when the error affects a federal constitutional right, if there is a reasonable doubt that the error affected the outcome of the proceeding, State v. Tuttle, 780 P.2d 1203, 1213 (Utah 1989), cert, denied, 494 U.S. 1018 , 110 S.Ct. 1323 , 108 L.Ed.2d 498 (1990).

1991An error is harmful if there is "a reasonable likelihood that the error affected the outcome in the trial court." Verde, 770 P.2d at 121 .

2010See generally State v. Verde, 770 P.2d 116,120 (Utah 1989) (stating that harmless errors are “errors which, although properly preserved below and presented on appeal, are sufficiently inconsequential that we conclude there is no reasonable likelihood that the error affected the outcome of the proceedings”); State v. Knight, 734 P.2d 913, 920 (Utah 1987) (concluding that the term “reasonable likelihood” is “substantively identical” to the term “reasonable probability,” and requires a “probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome” (internal quotation marks omitted)). “[W]e will

1990See Knight, 734 P.2d at 919-23 .

2018See In re P.D. , 2013 UT App 162 , ¶ 11, 306 P.3d 817 ("On appeal, the appellant has the burden of demonstrating an error was prejudicial-that there is a reasonable likelihood that the error affected the outcome of the proceedings." (quotation simplified) ).

2018See In re P.D., 2013 UT App 162 , ¶ 11, 306 P.3d 817 (“On appeal, the appellant has the burden of demonstrating an error was prejudicial—that there is a reasonable likelihood that the error affected the outcome of the proceedings.” (quotation simplified)).

2018See In re P.D. , 2013 UT App 162 , ¶ 11, 306 P.3d 817 ("On appeal, the appellant has the burden of demonstrating an error was prejudicial-that there is a reasonable likelihood that the error affected the outcome of the proceedings." (quotation simplified) ).

2018See In re P.D., 2013 UT App 162 , ¶ 11, 306 P.3d 817 (“On appeal, the appellant has the burden of demonstrating an error was prejudicial—that there is a reasonable likelihood that the error affected the outcome of the proceedings.” (quotation simplified)).

2024Moreover, it’s not enough for him to make a bald assertion of the harm; he also bears “the burden of demonstrating an error was prejudicial—that there is a reasonable likelihood that the error affected the outcome of the proceedings.” Covey v. Covey, 2003 UT App 380, ¶ 21 , 80 P.3d 553 (emphasis added) (cleaned up), cert. denied, 90 P.3d 1041 (Utah 2004).

2024Moreover, it’s not enough for him to make a bald assertion of the harm; he also bears “the burden of demonstrating an error was prejudicial—that there is a reasonable likelihood that the error affected the outcome of the proceedings.” Covey v. Covey, 2003 UT App 380, ¶ 21 , 80 P.3d 553 (emphasis added) (cleaned up), cert. denied, 90 P.3d 1041 (Utah 2004).

2025Under “well-accepted harmless error standards, we don’t reverse rulings unless there is a reasonable likelihood that the error 20230287-CA 16 2025 UT App 12 Schmidt v. Petersen affected the outcome of the proceedings.” Capozzoli v. Madden, 2024 UT App 176, ¶ 33 , -- P.3d -- (quotation simplified). ¶38 Again, Steve’s argument is that the court should have considered “Kyle’s undisputed past conduct” from the June 2022 incident as part of its analysis with respect to the December 2022 injunction.

2025Even if the court improperly allowed Marri’s first wife to testify, however, we will not reverse the court’s decision “unless there is a reasonable likelihood that the error affected the outcome of the proceedings.” Capozzoli v. Madden, 2024 UT App 176, ¶ 33 , 561 P.3d 727 (cleaned up); see also Steffensen v. Smith’s Mgmt.

2025And an “error is prejudicial if there is a reasonable likelihood that the error affected the outcome of the proceedings.” State v. Norton, 2021 UT 02 , ¶ 81, 481 P.3d 445 (quotation simplified); see also Reece, 2015 UT 45, ¶ 40 (concluding that an error relating to a lesser included offense would not be “harmful unless there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury would have acquitted” the defendant of the greater offense and “convicted him” of the lesser included offense); State v. Payne, 964 P.2d 327, 334 (Utah Ct. App. 1998) (concluding that the question is “whether, even though there was

2015A. There is a Rational Basis in the Evidence to Acquit Mr. Reece of Aggravated Murder and Convict Him of Lesser Included Offenses Involving Unintentional Killings ¶22 Even if the statutory elements of a lesser included offense overlap with those of the charged offense, ―a defendant‘s right to a lesser included offense instruction is limited by the evidence and only justified where there is a rational basis for a verdict acquitting the defendant of the offense charged and convicting him of the included offense.‖12 In making that determination, trial courts must ―view[] the evidence in the light

2020Likewise, we do so today: Drommond has not shown that he was prejudiced by the testimony about the children missing their mother and so we do not address any constitutional limits on victim-impact evidence. ¶119 A defendant is prejudiced by an error if there is not ―a mere possibility, but a reasonable likelihood that the error affected the result.‖ Maestas, 2012 UT 46, ¶ 308 (citation omitted).

2019“To conclude that an error was prejudicial, we must find not a mere possibility, but a reasonable likelihood that the error affected the result.” State v. Maestas, 2012 UT 46, ¶ 308 , 299 P.3d 892 (quotation simplified).

2009"To prevail on an appeal based on instructions to the jury, this court must find both that the instruction was inaccurate and that there is not a mere possibility, but a reasonable likelihood that the error affected the result." Haupt v. Heaps, 2005 UT App 436, ¶ 38 , 131 P.3d 252 (internal quotation marks omitted).

2009"To prevail on an appeal based on instructions to the jury, this court must find both that the instruction was inaccurate and that there is not a mere possibility, but a reasonable likelihood that the error affected the result." Haupt v. Heaps, 2005 UT App 436, ¶ 38 , 131 P.3d 252 (internal quotation marks omitted).

2026See State v. Hawkins, 2016 UT App 9, ¶ 52 , 366 P.3d 884 (“To reverse a trial verdict, we 20240381-CA 10 2026 UT App 74 State v. Paramoure must find not a mere possibility, but a reasonable likelihood that the error affected the result.”) (quotation simplified), cert. denied, 379 P.3d 1181 (Utah 2016).

2026See State v. Hawkins, 2016 UT App 9, ¶ 52 , 366 P.3d 884 (“To reverse a trial verdict, we 20240381-CA 10 2026 UT App 74 State v. Paramoure must find not a mere possibility, but a reasonable likelihood that the error affected the result.”) (quotation simplified), cert. denied, 379 P.3d 1181 (Utah 2016).

2026See State v. Hawkins, 2016 UT App 9, ¶ 52 , 366 P.3d 884 (“To reverse a trial verdict, we 20240381-CA 10 2026 UT App 74 State v. Paramoure must find not a mere possibility, but a reasonable likelihood that the error affected the result.”) (quotation simplified), cert. denied, 379 P.3d 1181 (Utah 2016).

2026See State v. Hawkins, 2016 UT App 9, ¶ 52 , 366 P.3d 884 (“To reverse a trial verdict, we 20240381-CA 10 2026 UT App 74 State v. Paramoure must find not a mere possibility, but a reasonable likelihood that the error affected the result.”) (quotation simplified), cert. denied, 379 P.3d 1181 (Utah 2016).

2025And an “error is prejudicial if there is a reasonable likelihood that the error affected the outcome of the proceedings.” State v. Norton, 2021 UT 02 , ¶ 81, 481 P.3d 445 (quotation simplified); see also Reece, 2015 UT 45, ¶ 40 (concluding that an error relating to a lesser included offense would not be “harmful unless there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury would have acquitted” the defendant of the greater offense and “convicted him” of the lesser included offense); State v. Payne, 964 P.2d 327, 334 (Utah Ct. App. 1998) (concluding that the question is “whether, even though there was

2024See State v. Ellis, 2018 UT 2, ¶ 42 , 417 P.3d 86 (stating that “[p]rejudice analysis is counterfactual,” and that when courts are deciding “whether a trial affected by error is reasonably likely to have turned out differently we have to consider a hypothetical—an alternative universe in which the trial went off without the error”).

2024See State v. Ellis, 2018 UT 2, ¶ 42 , 417 P.3d 86 (stating that “[p]rejudice analysis is counterfactual,” and that when courts are deciding “whether a trial affected by error is reasonably likely to have turned out differently we have to consider a hypothetical—an alternative universe in which the trial went off without the error”).