If you only remember one point about evidence law in Utah, remember this: Utah evidence practice is organized under the Utah Rules of Evidence. Relevance starts at Utah R. Evid. 401, 403; hearsay starts at Utah R. Evid. 801, 802. Procedure, examples, and the opinions below hang off Utah Rules of Evidence. Authenticity is a separate fight under Utah R. Evid. 901, 902. Depositions at trial: Utah R. Civ. P. 30 and 32 govern civil depositions and trial use. Utah R. Crim. P. 16 controls criminal discovery; prior testimony may be admitted under Utah R. Evid. 804(b)(1).
Hearsay: start with the definition
Most hearsay objections in Utah are won or lost on the definition, not on an exception. Under Utah R. Evid. 801, 802, hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Non-hearsay purposes — verbal acts, effect on the listener, notice, circumstantial evidence of state of mind, and impeachment — remain available when the proponent can articulate them without asking the jury to believe the declarant.
Layered hearsay (hearsay within hearsay) requires an exception or exclusion for each layer. Machine-generated data and non-assertive conduct sit outside the hearsay definition in FRE-aligned jurisdictions, but they still need authenticity and, often, expert or business-records foundations.
Utah hearsay opinions
State v. Scott
State v. Scott, 462 P.3d 350 (2020)
…hooting, however, the trial court excluded the testimony on hearsay grounds. ¶2 It is undisputed that the threat was not hearsay and should have been admitted. Nevertheless, Scott’s trial counsel did not make this argument, and the jury never heard the content of the threat. The jury ultimately convicted Scott of murder, and he appealed. ¶3 Scott argued in the court of appeals…
State v. Scott is worth reading on Utah hearsay because the court put the point in its own words: "It is undisputed that the threat was not hearsay and should have been admitted. Nevertheless, Scott’s trial counsel did not make this argument, and the jury never heard the content of the threat. The jury ultimately convicted Scott of murder, and he appealed." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Larry JULIAN, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. STATE of Utah, Defendant and Appellant
…sel were ineffective for fading to object to the unreliable hearsay and for failing to request that the court make reliability findings; and (3) appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the trial court’s reversible errors on direct appeal. On February 12,1996, the State moved for an extension of time to respond to the petition. The habeas court granted that motion…
On hearsay, Larry JULIAN, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. STATE of Utah, Defendant and Appellant speaks to the Utah dispute in this passage: "On February 12,1996, the State moved for an extension of time to respond to the petition." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Chris Alfred BERTUL, Defendant and Appellant
…n. The trial court ruled that the document was inadmissible hearsay. In making out a booking sheet, the booking officer writes in a number indicating the arrestee’s degree of intoxication. The number is based on the conclusion of the “searching officer” who verbally communicates his conclusion to the booking officer. A “1” indicates that the searching officer concluded that he…
Practitioners open STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Chris Alfred BERTUL, Defendant and Appellant when Utah hearsay turns on the distinction in this sentence: "The trial court ruled that the document was inadmissible hearsay. In making out a booking sheet, the booking officer writes in a number indicating the arrestee’s degree of intoxication." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
PROSPER, INC., Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE SERVICES, Workforce Appeals Board; And Katrina E. Iversen
…n its burden of proof because Prosper relied exclusively on hearsay evidence. We agree with Prosper that the Board misapplied the residuum rule. *345 BACKGROUND 12 Prosper is a Utah company that provides, among other services, long distance financial education services and products, including individual phone sessions with "financial coachfes]." Iversen began working for Prospe…
On hearsay, PROSPER, INC., Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE SERVICES, Workforce Appeals Board; And Katrina E. Iversen speaks to the Utah dispute in this passage: "Prosper relied exclusively on hearsay evidence. We agree with Prosper that the Board misapplied the residuum rule." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Jodi KRANENDONK, and Cross-appellee v. GREGORY & SWAPP, PLLC and Erik Highberg, and
…ssue as to liability and that the answers were inadmissible hearsay. Accordingly, it ruled that Kranendonk had not made a prima facie case that her underlying negligence case would have been successful but for the Attorneys' malpractice. Kranendonk challenges this ruling on appeal. 18 With respect to damages, the court ruled that Kranendonk had raised a genuine issue of materia…
On hearsay, Jodi KRANENDONK, and Cross-appellee v. GREGORY & SWAPP, PLLC and Erik Highberg, and speaks to the Utah dispute in this passage: "Accordingly, it ruled that Kranendonk had not made a prima facie case that her underlying negligence case would have been successful but for the Attorneys' malpractice. Kranendonk challenges this ruling on appeal." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Jerry P. AUBLE, Defendant and Appellant
…fe, Claudette Auble. He charges error in the admission of a hearsay statement, allegedly made by Claudette, reporting that Jerry had recently threatened to kill her. We reject his claim and affirm. . Claudette Auble was shot to death with a high-powered rifle in the couple’s bedroom. The police initially treated the case as an accidental shooting but became suspicious when the…
On hearsay, STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Jerry P. AUBLE, Defendant and Appellant speaks to the Utah dispute in this passage: "Claudette Auble. He charges error in the admission of a hearsay statement, allegedly made by Claudette, reporting that Jerry had recently threatened to kill her. We reject his claim and affirm. . Claudette Auble was shot to death with a high-powered rifle in the couple’s bedroom." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
State v. Biel
State v. Biel, 484 P.3d 1172 (2021)
…bstantive evidence as well.” Rule 801 defines and regulates hearsay.5 The rule provides that a witness’s prior inconsistent statement does not constitute hearsay when the witness “testifies and is subject to cross-examination about [that] prior statement.” UTAH R. EVID. 801(d)(1)(A).6 Our caselaw and the plain text of rule 801(d)(1)(A) confirm that prior inconsistent statements…
Utah opinions such as State v. Biel are cited where hearsay is disputed. The court stated: "Rule 801 defines and regulates hearsay.5 The rule provides that a witness’s prior inconsistent statement does not constitute hearsay when the witness “testifies and is subject to cross-examination about [that] prior statement.” UTAH R. EVID. 801(d)(1)(A)." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Walking through Utah facts
Use this walkthrough to see which Utah authority does the work at each step.
A lawyer in Utah wants to offer a medical record, a party email, and a statement the declarant made while believing death was imminent.
- Clear relevance and unfair prejudice under Utah R. Evid. 401, 403.
- If the email is the opposing party's, test Utah R. Evid. 801(d)(2) before the hearsay definition in Utah R. Evid. 801, 802.
- For the medical record, lay the business-records foundation in Utah R. Evid. 803(6) and the treatment purpose in Utah R. Evid. 803(4).
- For the deathbed statement, meet Utah R. Evid. 804(b)(2), then authenticate every exhibit under Utah R. Evid. 901, 902.
Utah keeps hearsay, character, and authenticity on different rules inside the Utah Rules of Evidence. Winning one does not win the others.
Party admissions
Statements of an opposing party are among the most important routes around the hearsay bar. Utah treats them under Utah R. Evid. 801(d)(2). Nothing about the statement need be against interest, contemporaneous, or based on personal knowledge — the theory is adversarial, not reliability-based. A party cannot complain that his own words are unreliable when offered against him.
Scope questions dominate practice: the party's own statement; adopted statements (including silence in circumstances where a reasonable person would deny); statements by authorized speakers; agent or employee statements on matters within the scope of the relationship; and, in criminal conspiracy cases, coconspirator statements during and in furtherance of the conspiracy. A defendant generally cannot introduce his own exculpatory out-of-court statement as a "party admission" against himself — the rule runs one way.
Utah party-admission opinions
STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Scott G. WORTHEN, Defendant and Appellant
…ns of the letter quoted above to the jury as representative admissions of a party opponent to show that the State knew that there was no evidence that Scott Worthen committed any act of abuse. The judge refused to allow the defendant to call the prosecutor or to submit the prosecutor’s letter to the jury because the judge was not convinced that the evidence was important enough…
Utah opinions such as STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Scott G. WORTHEN, Defendant and Appellant are cited where party admissions is disputed. The court stated: "State knew that there was no evidence that Scott Worthen committed any act of abuse." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Kenneth J. WEBSTER, Defendant and Appellant
…overning the admissibility of evidence of prior "bad acts." Admission of evidence under Rule 404(b) is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See State v. Decorso, 1999 UT 57,¶¶ 16-18, 993 P.2d 837, cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1164, 120 S.Ct 1181, 145 L.Ed.2d 1088 (2000). However, "admission of prior crimes evidence itself must be serupulously examined by trial judges in the proper exerc…
STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Kenneth J. WEBSTER, Defendant and Appellant is worth reading on Utah party admissions because the court put the point in its own words: "Admission of evidence under Rule 404(b) is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See State v. Decorso, 1999 UT 57,¶¶ 16-18, 993 P.2d 837, cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1164, 120 S.Ct 1181, 145 L.Ed.2d 1088 (2000)." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
TROLLEY SQUARE ASSOCIATES, and TS1 Partnership, Limited Partnership, an Indiana Limited Partnership, Plaintiffs
…ements of an equitable estoppel claim are: (1) a statement, admission, act, or failure to act by one party inconsistent with a claim later asserted; (2) reasonable action or inaction by the other party taken on the basis of the first party’s statement, admission, act, or failure to act; and (3) injury to the second party that would result from allowing the first party to contra…
Practitioners open TROLLEY SQUARE ASSOCIATES, and TS1 Partnership, Limited Partnership, an Indiana Limited Partnership, Plaintiffs when Utah party admissions turns on the distinction in this sentence: "ements of an equitable estoppel claim are: (1) a statement, admission, act, or failure to act by one party inconsistent with a claim later asserted; (2) reasonable action or inaction by the other party taken on the basis of the first party’s statement, admission, act, or failure" Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Amber McKELVEY, Individually and on Behalf of Hamilton Brother's Electric, Inc., a Utah Company, Plaintiffs and
…a reply to include fraudulent procurement in her pleadings. Admission or exclusion of evidence is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Eggett v. Wasatch Energy Corp., 2004 UT 28, ¶ 10, 94 P.3d 193. A district court's decision to permit a reply is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Utah R. Civ P. 7(a) ("[The court may order a reply to an answer ...." (emphasis added)). ANALY…
Amber McKELVEY, Individually and on Behalf of Hamilton Brother's Electric, Inc., a Utah Company, Plaintiffs and is worth reading on Utah party admissions because the court put the point in its own words: "Admission or exclusion of evidence is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Eggett v. Wasatch Energy Corp., 2004 UT 28, ¶ 10, 94 P.3d 193. A district court's decision to permit a reply is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Utah R. Civ P." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
SALT LAKE CITY, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Glenn E. HOLTMAN, Defendant and Appellant
…(defendant did not waive for appellate review challenge to admission of evidence which was subject of motion to suppress when defendant failed to further object at trial); State v. Mitchell, 779 P.2d 1116 (Utah 1989) (motion in limine adequately preserved issue for appeal); State v. Ross, 782 P.2d 529 (Utah Ct.App.1989) (defendant’s failure to make contemporaneous, specific ob…
SALT LAKE CITY, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Glenn E. HOLTMAN, Defendant and Appellant is worth reading on Utah party admissions because the court put the point in its own words: "State v. Mitchell, 779 P.2d 1116 (Utah 1989) (motion in limine adequately preserved issue for appeal); State v. Ross, 782 P.2d 529 (Utah Ct.App." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
STATE of Utah, and v. Jeffrey Michael GALLUP, and
STATE of Utah, and v. Jeffrey Michael GALLUP, and, 2011 Utah App. LEXIS 416 (2011)
…y." The State asserted that the hang-up was akin to a party admission under the hearsay exceptions of the Utah Rules of Evidence. The trial court agreed with the State and determined that neither case law nor the Utah Rules of Evidence prohibited admission of the hang-up evidence. T6 At trial, the State focused its direct examination of the trooper on the phone call and particu…
Utah opinions such as STATE of Utah, and v. Jeffrey Michael GALLUP, and are cited where party admissions is disputed. The court stated: "The State asserted that the hang-up was akin to a party admission under the hearsay exceptions of the Utah Rules of Evidence. The trial court agreed with the State and determined that neither case law nor the Utah Rules of Evidence prohibited admission of the hang-up evidence." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
IOTA, LLC, a Utah Limited Liability Company; And California Benefit, Inc., a California Corporation, Plaintiffs and
…s uncertain, that is, where neither independent acts nor an admission of the contract affirmatively demonstrate that an oral contract existed. See id. at 277-78. Such is the case here. Plaintiffs vigorously deny the existence of an oral contract to extend the maturity dates, and the only evidence of the contract presented by Daveo is Fisher's assertion and the testimony of the…
Utah opinions such as IOTA, LLC, a Utah Limited Liability Company; And California Benefit, Inc., a California Corporation, Plaintiffs and are cited where party admissions is disputed. The court stated: "s uncertain, that is, where neither independent acts nor an admission of the contract affirmatively demonstrate that an oral contract existed. See id. at 277-78. Such is the case here. Plaintiffs vigorously deny the existence of an oral contract to extend the maturity dates, and" That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Business records
The business-records exception under Utah R. Evid. 803(6) is the everyday path for medical charts, employment files, bank statements, and maintenance logs. The foundation requires a record made at or near the time by — or from information transmitted by — someone with knowledge; kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity; and made as a regular practice. A custodian or other qualified witness (or a qualifying certification where the jurisdiction allows it) lays the foundation. The opponent may still attack lack of trustworthiness when the source or method of preparation indicates unreliability — litigation-driven reports are the classic failure mode.
Do not confuse authenticity with the business-records exception. You still need to show the exhibit is what you claim it is; the hearsay exception then answers why the out-of-court assertions inside it may be considered for their truth.
Utah business-records opinions
STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Roland McNEIL, Defendant and Appellant
…custodian" to determine whether the records fit within the business records exception. Defense counsel never sought this opportunity at trial. Rather, he focused on his ability to cross-examine the detective: "We don't have the opportunity of asking [the detective] if he could verify the conversations actually took place or if they were simply playing phone tag the entire time…
Practitioners open STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Roland McNEIL, Defendant and Appellant when Utah business records turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Defense counsel never sought this opportunity at trial." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Gina M. ARNOLD, Appellant and Cross-Appellee, v. David GRIGSBY, M.D., Appellee and Cross-Appellant.
…testimony, and the nurse's report was admissible under the business records exception to the bar on hearsay; similarly, the court correctly excluded all the evidence Ms. Arnold proffered. We hold that a directed verdict isn't warranted here where sufficient evidence was offered to sustain a jury verdict in favor of Dr. Grigsby. And, finally, we hold that, read as a whole, the…
Gina M. ARNOLD, Appellant and Cross-Appellee, v. David GRIGSBY, M.D., Appellee and Cross-Appellant. is worth reading on Utah business records because the court put the point in its own words: "Ms. Arnold proffered. We hold that a directed verdict isn't warranted here where sufficient evidence was offered to sustain a jury verdict in favor of Dr. Grigsby." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Jack R. KEHL, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Fred C. SCHWENDIMAN, Chief Drivers’ License Services, Department of
…is admissible under two exceptions to the hearsay rule: the business records exception, Utah R.Evid. 803(6), and the public records exception, Utah R.Evid. 803(8). Inasmuch as Utah Code Ann. § 41-6-44.3 (1983) allows affidavits to establish the necessary foundation for breathalyzer evidence, it is less restrictive than the business records exception to the hearsay rule, Utah R.…
Practitioners open Jack R. KEHL, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Fred C. SCHWENDIMAN, Chief Drivers’ License Services, Department of when Utah business records turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Utah R.Evid. 803(6), and the public records exception, Utah R.Evid. 803(8). Inasmuch as Utah Code Ann. § 41-6-44." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Chris Alfred BERTUL, Defendant and Appellant
…Defendant contends that the booking sheet falls within the business record exception and within the exception for past recollection recorded. Because we conclude that the booking sheet should have been admitted as a “business record,” we do not address the exception to the hearsay rule for past recollection recorded. Rule 63(13) of the Utah Rules of Evidence provides for the a…
STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Chris Alfred BERTUL, Defendant and Appellant is worth reading on Utah business records because the court put the point in its own words: "Defendant contends that the booking sheet falls within the business record exception and within the exception for past recollection recorded." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
TROLLEY SQUARE ASSOCIATES, and TS1 Partnership, Limited Partnership, an Indiana Limited Partnership, Plaintiffs
…chant dues. These summaries were admitted into evidence as “business records” and were used by the trial court to determine the judgment against SMI and against Whitesides and Nielson as guarantors of the full amount. ISSUES ON APPEAL On appeal, appellants argue: (1) that the lease agreement was ambiguous, and thus the trial court should have construed the lease term as running…
TROLLEY SQUARE ASSOCIATES, and TS1 Partnership, Limited Partnership, an Indiana Limited Partnership, Plaintiffs is worth reading on Utah business records because the court put the point in its own words: "These summaries were admitted into evidence as “business records” and were used by the trial court to determine the judgment against SMI and against Whitesides and Nielson as guarantors of the full amount." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
The STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Julie Lee SUTTON, Defendant and Appellant
…the agency. The receipts are, however, admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. Utah R.Evid. 803(6) allows for the admission of records of regularly conducted activities when certain additional requirements are met. The records of a government agency can fall under the business records exception if a proper foundation is laid. See Barney v. Cox, Utah…
The STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Julie Lee SUTTON, Defendant and Appellant is worth reading on Utah business records because the court put the point in its own words: "The receipts are, however, admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. Utah R.Evid. 803(6) allows for the admission of records of regularly conducted activities when certain additional requirements are met." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Robert B. KLINGER and Karol J. Klinger, Plaintiffs, v. Eugene E. KIGHTLY, Helen L. Kightly, Harry D. Kreis, Peggy R
…tute of limitation issue. II. Hearsay Evidence A. Admitting business record Calder argues that the trial court committed reversible error when it refused to admit into evidence the diary of surveyor John Stafford pursuant to the business record exception to the hearsay rule. Stafford died before the trial, but left dated notes about the survey in a business diary. Calder’s atto…
Utah opinions such as Robert B. KLINGER and Karol J. Klinger, Plaintiffs, v. Eugene E. KIGHTLY, Helen L. Kightly, Harry D. Kreis, Peggy R are cited where business records is disputed. The court stated: "II. Hearsay Evidence A. Admitting business record Calder argues that the trial court committed reversible error when it refused to admit into evidence the diary of surveyor John Stafford pursuant to the business record exception to the hearsay rule." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
LAYTON CITY, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Monika S. PERONEK, Defendant and Appellant
…about the incident report and admitted the report under the business records exception of Utah R.Evid. 803(6). The court found that defendant had violated the terms of her probation and reimposed portions of her suspended sentence. On appeal, defendant argues that admission of the incident report was improper under Rule 803(6), and should have been precluded under Rule 803(8).…
On business records, LAYTON CITY, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Monika S. PERONEK, Defendant and Appellant speaks to the Utah dispute in this passage: "Utah R.Evid. 803(6). The court found that defendant had violated the terms of her probation and reimposed portions of her suspended sentence." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Important hearsay exceptions that do not require unavailability
Three present-sense and mental-state exceptions carry most of the remaining traffic in Utah trial practice.
Excited utterance — Utah R. Evid. 803(2). A statement relating to a startling event or condition, made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement that it caused. Timing is elastic; composure defeats the exception even minutes after the event, while visible distress can preserve it for hours.
Present sense impression — Utah R. Evid. 803(1). A statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while or immediately after the declarant perceived it. Contemporaneity is strict — seconds and minutes, not hours — and excitement is not required.
Then-existing mental, emotional, or physical condition — Utah R. Evid. 803(3). Statements of then-existing state of mind (including intent and plan) come in; statements of memory or belief offered to prove the fact remembered generally do not. Intent-to-meet-another-person cases remain the hardest applications.
Declarant unavailable
When the declarant is unavailable under Utah R. Evid. 804(a), Utah opens a second suite of exceptions. Unavailability typically includes privilege, refusal to testify despite court order, lack of memory, death or then-existing infirmity, and absence despite reasonable efforts to procure attendance. The proponent bears the burden of proving unavailability with specific facts — a bare assertion that the witness "could not be found" is not enough.
Former testimony under Utah R. Evid. 804(b)(1) is the workhorse once unavailability is shown: testimony given as a witness at a trial, hearing, or lawful deposition, offered against a party who had an opportunity and similar motive to develop it by direct, cross, or redirect. Criminal confrontation analysis runs in parallel and is not satisfied merely because a hearsay exception applies.
Dying declarations
Dying declarations under Utah R. Evid. 804(b)(2) remain a narrow but decisive exception in homicide and, in many jurisdictions, civil cases involving the cause or circumstances of what the declarant believed to be impending death. The foundational showing is the declarant's belief that death was imminent — not that death in fact followed within any particular time — plus a statement concerning the cause or circumstances of what the declarant believed to be the impending death. Courts police coaching and narrative expansions aggressively.
Utah dying-declaration opinions
STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Forrest WHITTLE, Defendant and Appellant
…oss, or redirect examination. (2) Statement under belief of impending death. In a civil or criminal action or proceeding, a statement made by a declarant while believing that the declarant's death was imminent, if the judge finds it was made in good faith. (3) Statement against interest. A statement which was at the time of its making so far contrary to the declarant’s pecuniar…
On dying declaration, STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Forrest WHITTLE, Defendant and Appellant speaks to the Utah dispute in this passage: "Statement under belief of impending death. In a civil or criminal action or proceeding, a statement made by a declarant while believing that the declarant's death was imminent, if the judge finds it was made in good faith. (3) Statement against interest." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
THE STATE OF UTAH v. W. A. MANNION
THE STATE OF UTAH v. W. A. MANNION, 45 L.R.A. 638 (1899)
…ell established is that except to documentary evidence, and dying declarations, one accused of a felony can not be convicted except on the testimony of witnesses whom, now on the trial, or on some previous occasion, he has had the opportunity of meeting face to face and openly examining and cross-examining in the presence of the parties and the jury. 1 Bish. New Crim. Proc., Se…
Practitioners open THE STATE OF UTAH v. W. A. MANNION when Utah dying declaration turns on the distinction in this sentence: "ell established is that except to documentary evidence, and dying declarations, one accused of a felony can not be convicted except on the testimony of witnesses whom, now on the trial, or on some previous occasion, he has had the opportunity of meeting face to face and openly ex" Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
THE PEOPLE v. PATRICK CALLAGHAN (Impleaded with another)
THE PEOPLE v. PATRICK CALLAGHAN (Impleaded with another), 4 Utah 49 (1885)
…xt question relates to the admissibility in evidence of the dying declaration of the deceased. The declarations were written, but were not signed by the deceased, and were as follows: “Daniel Mahoney, being duly sworn, deposes and says, that Pat Callaghan shot me in front of Staples’ place. How many shots were fired? He fired two shots. I fired one. What is your business? Night…
THE PEOPLE v. PATRICK CALLAGHAN (Impleaded with another) is worth reading on Utah dying declaration because the court put the point in its own words: "The declarations were written, but were not signed by the deceased, and were as follows: “Daniel Mahoney, being duly sworn, deposes and says, that Pat Callaghan shot me in front of Staples’ place. How many shots were fired?" Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
State v. Cragun
State v. Cragun, 85 Utah 149 (1934)
…upon trial of his assailant for felonious killing, that the dying declaration must be received with all the infirmities attending the testimony of an accomplice in the crime. This distinction between a man's injuring his own body himself, or through assent to such injury from another, and the crime that may be committed by another in inflicting such injury, has been strongly dr…
Practitioners open State v. Cragun when Utah dying declaration turns on the distinction in this sentence: "upon trial of his assailant for felonious killing, that the dying declaration must be received with all the infirmities attending the testimony of an accomplice in the crime. This distinction between a man's injuring his own body himself, or through assent to such injury from ano" Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Paul Buddy ST. CLAIR, Defendant and Appellant
…t time there is conflict. The state’s version, based on the dying declaration of Vesta Wittke, and corroborated by her 15 year old daughter, Pat, who was in bed with her mother at the time, is in substance: That defendant came to the Wittke home and, without knocking or asking to enter, went into the bed room where Mrs. Wittke and her daughter were in bed, switched on the light…
On dying declaration, STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Paul Buddy ST. CLAIR, Defendant and Appellant speaks to the Utah dispute in this passage: "Vesta Wittke, and corroborated by her 15 year old daughter, Pat, who was in bed with her mother at the time, is in substance: That defendant came to the Wittke home and, without knocking or asking to enter, went into the bed room where Mrs." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
THE PEOPLE, &c. v. WILLIAM TRACY
THE PEOPLE, &c. v. WILLIAM TRACY, 1 Utah 343 (1876)
…ning prior to his death, -were allowed to go to the jury as dying declarations, the Defendant objecting to their admission. The deceased seemed to have a dread of approaching dissolution ; he did not want to talk about death. He declared that “ this is the last time I shall ever stand' on my feet.”- “ I got a bad one,” meaning the shot. “'Til never get over it.” Such language w…
THE PEOPLE, &c. v. WILLIAM TRACY is worth reading on Utah dying declaration because the court put the point in its own words: "Defendant objecting to their admission. The deceased seemed to have a dread of approaching dissolution ; he did not want to talk about death. He declared that “ this is the last time I shall ever stand' on my feet.”- “ I got a bad one,” meaning the shot. “'Til never get over it." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Medical diagnosis or treatment statements
Statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment under Utah R. Evid. 803(4) cover medical history, past or present symptoms, and their general cause when reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment. The exception is not limited to treating physicians; statements to nurses, EMTs, and consulting clinicians can qualify when the diagnostic purpose is genuine. Fault and identity remain the usual battleground: "I was hit by a car" is often pertinent; "the light was green" usually is not; abuser identity in child-abuse and domestic-violence cases is heavily litigated.
Utah medical-statement opinions
Larry JULIAN, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. STATE of Utah, Defendant and Appellant
…nd allows the admission of statements "made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment and describing medical history, or past or present symptoms, pain, or sensations, or the inception or general character of the cause or external source thereof insofar as reasonably pertinent to diagnosis or treatment.” Utah R. Evid. 803(4) (1998). The 1992 amendments to the rules of evid…
Larry JULIAN, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. STATE of Utah, Defendant and Appellant is worth reading on Utah medical diagnosis hearsay because the court put the point in its own words: "nd allows the admission of statements 'made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment and describing medical history, or past or present symptoms, pain, or sensations, or the inception or general character of the cause or external source thereof insofar as reasonably pertine" Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
State v. Miller
State v. Miller, 535 P.3d 390 (2023)
…3(4) of the Utah Rules of Evidence as a “statement made for medical diagnosis or treatment.” The trial court overruled Counsel’s objection and additionally noted that, had the objection been sustained, Counsel would likewise be precluded from asking Nurse about Colleen’s statement to her that she had been wearing jeans at the time of the assault. ¶14 Nurse then testified that C…
On medical diagnosis hearsay, State v. Miller speaks to the Utah dispute in this passage: "Utah Rules of Evidence as a “statement made for medical diagnosis or treatment." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Joseph R. FOX and Linda A. Fox, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY, a Utah Nonprofit
…they contained statements made by Mrs. Fox for purposes of medical diagnosis and treatment. The trial court held that, to the extent that Utah Code section 78-27-33 is inconsistent with rule 803(4), the statute was impliedly repealed by virtue of the Utah Constitution. ¶ 11 The trial court also ruled that the Foxes could not sustain their burden of proof as to causation and da…
Joseph R. FOX and Linda A. Fox, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY, a Utah Nonprofit is worth reading on Utah medical diagnosis hearsay because the court put the point in its own words: "Mrs. Fox for purposes of medical diagnosis and treatment. The trial court held that, to the extent that Utah Code section 78-27-33 is inconsistent with rule 803(4), the statute was impliedly repealed by virtue of the Utah Constitution." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Sean R. SLOAN, Defendant and Appellant
…ence. Under rule 803(4), "[s]tatements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment" are "not excluded by the hearsay rule," whether or not the declarant testifies. Utah R. Evid. 803(4). This rule has been applied to psychiatrists and psychologists, see State v. Jaeger, 1999 UT 1, ¶ 27, 973 P.2d 404; State v. Schreuder, 726 P.2d 1215, 1224 (Utah 1986), as well as social…
Practitioners open STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Sean R. SLOAN, Defendant and Appellant when Utah medical diagnosis hearsay turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Under rule 803(4), '[s]tatements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment' are 'not excluded by the hearsay rule,' whether or not the declarant testifies. Utah R. Evid. 803(4). This rule has been applied to psychiatrists and psychologists, see State v." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Edward L. PERCHELLI, Plaintiff, v. UTAH STATE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, Utah State Department of Highways and the State
…ome, he sneezed with an apparent ■onset of severe pain. The medical diagnosis was a hérniated disc L5 SI; applicant failed to respond to conservative treatment. On April 24, 1968, Dr. Wright, M. D., performed a surgical intervention to remove the extruded material. Applicant applied for additional compensation benefits, which were denied. Subsequent to a hearing before a hearin…
Edward L. PERCHELLI, Plaintiff, v. UTAH STATE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, Utah State Department of Highways and the State is worth reading on Utah medical diagnosis hearsay because the court put the point in its own words: "The medical diagnosis was a hérniated disc L5 SI; applicant failed to respond to conservative treatment. On April 24, 1968, Dr. Wright, M. D., performed a surgical intervention to remove the extruded material." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
DEAN EVANS CHRYSLER PLYMOUTH, and the State Insurance Fund, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Donald S. MORSE, Defendant
…is dual: first, to enable the employer to provide immediate medical diagnosis and treatment with a view to minimizing the seriousness of the injury; and second, to facilitate the earliest possible investigation of the facts surrounding the injury.” 2 A. Larson, Larson’s Workmen’s Compensation Law § 78.20 (1983) (footnote omitted). The second sentence of the statute contains a o…
Utah opinions such as DEAN EVANS CHRYSLER PLYMOUTH, and the State Insurance Fund, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Donald S. MORSE, Defendant are cited where medical diagnosis hearsay is disputed. The court stated: "A. Larson, Larson’s Workmen’s Compensation Law § 78.20 (1983) (footnote omitted)." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
KENNECOTT CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. the INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF UTAH and Russell B. Davis, Defendants
…is two-fold: 1) to enable the employer to provide immediate medical diagnosis and treatment; and 2) to facilitate the earliest possible investigation of the facts surrounding the injury. Morse, 692 P.2d at 781. In this case Ken-necott was able to provide medical diagnosis and treatment shortly after both accidents and was notified expeditiously to permit a prompt investigation…
Practitioners open KENNECOTT CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. the INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF UTAH and Russell B. Davis, Defendants when Utah medical diagnosis hearsay turns on the distinction in this sentence: "is two-fold: 1) to enable the employer to provide immediate medical diagnosis and treatment; and 2) to facilitate the earliest possible investigation of the facts surrounding the injury. Morse, 692 P.2d at 781. In this case Ken-necott was able to provide medical diagnosis and tre" Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
STATE of Utah, in the interest of L.N. and S.N., persons under eighteen years of age. L.N. v. State of Utah
…he hearsay exception covering “[sjtatements for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment.” Utah R. Evid. 803(4). Father objected.4 After limited discussion of the issue, the court asked whether the statements could be admitted pursuant to the trust relationship statute. See Utah Code Ann. § 78-3a-116(5). ¶21 We do not reach the merits of Father’s contention that L.N.’s statem…
Utah opinions such as STATE of Utah, in the interest of L.N. and S.N., persons under eighteen years of age. L.N. v. State of Utah are cited where medical diagnosis hearsay is disputed. The court stated: "Utah R. Evid. 803(4). Father objected.4 After limited discussion of the issue, the court asked whether the statements could be admitted pursuant to the trust relationship statute. See Utah Code Ann. § 78-3a-116(5). ¶21 We do not reach the merits of Father’s contention that L.N." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Use of depositions at trial
Utah R. Civ. P. 30 and 32 govern civil depositions and trial use. Utah R. Crim. P. 16 controls criminal discovery; prior testimony may be admitted under Utah R. Evid. 804(b)(1).
Deposition use is always a two-layer problem: procedural permission to read or play the deposition, plus a hearsay path (often former testimony, party admission, or impeachment). Counsel who satisfy the civil or criminal procedure rule but skip the evidence-rule foundation invite a sustained objection; counsel who have a hearsay exception but failed to preserve the deposition under the procedural rule face the same result. Video designations, counter-designations, and completeness objections should be teed up before the jury is seated.
Utah deposition / former-testimony opinions
STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Cecil Earl BROOKS and James Charles Edward Good, Defendants and Appellants
…the declarant were testifying in person and in the case of depositions: . . . (b) if the judge finds that the declarant is unavailable as a witness at the hearing, testimony given as a witness in another action or in a deposition taken in compliance with law in another action, when (ii) the issue is such that the adverse party on the former occasion had the right and opportuni…
Utah opinions such as STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Cecil Earl BROOKS and James Charles Edward Good, Defendants and Appellants are cited where deposition / former testimony is disputed. The court stated: "the declarant were testifying in person and in the case of depositions: . . . (b) if the judge finds that the declarant is unavailable as a witness at the hearing, testimony given as a witness in another action or in a deposition taken in compliance with law in another action, wh" That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. William HORTON, Defendant and Appellant
…tinuance when Horton so requested, instead, ordering that a deposition be taken of Clara Meinhart’s testimony for use at trial. Following a guilty verdict by a jury, Horton was sentenced to serve one term of one to fifteen years and six terms of up to five years at the Utah State Prison along with a six month term at the Uintah County Jail, with all terms to be served consecuti…
STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. William HORTON, Defendant and Appellant is worth reading on Utah deposition / former testimony because the court put the point in its own words: "Horton so requested, instead, ordering that a deposition be taken of Clara Meinhart’s testimony for use at trial." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
The STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Glenn G. NIELSEN, Defendant and Appellant — Crockett, J., dissenting
…ute is this: The defendant argues that his proposal to take depositions for discovery purposes is neither covered by nor in conflict with any “other applicable statute or rule”; whereas the county attorney contends to the contrary. The emphasized portions of the statutes relied upon by the county attorney as being the “other applicable statutes” should be carefully noted: Secti…
On deposition / former testimony, The STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Glenn G. NIELSEN, Defendant and Appellant — Crockett, J., dissenting speaks to the Utah dispute in this passage: "The defendant argues that his proposal to take depositions for discovery purposes is neither covered by nor in conflict with any “other applicable statute or rule”; whereas the county attorney contends to the contrary." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
SALT LAKE CITY, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Frederick Thomas GEORGE, Defendant and Appellant
…ed in formalized testimonial materials, such as affidavits, depositions, prior testimony, or confessions." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). The last test considered was " 'statements that were made under circumstances which would lead an objective witness reasonably to believe that the statements would be available for use at a later trial)" Id. at 52, 124 S.Ct. 1854 (ci…
On deposition / former testimony, SALT LAKE CITY, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Frederick Thomas GEORGE, Defendant and Appellant speaks to the Utah dispute in this passage: "Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). The last test considered was ' 'statements that were made under circumstances which would lead an objective witness reasonably to believe that the statements would be available for use at a later trial)' Id. at 52, 124 S.Ct." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
LLOYD’S UNLIMITED, a Corporation, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. NATURE’S WAY MARKETING, LTD., a Corporation, Defendant
…Lloyd’s its requested costs incurred in taking Burningham’s deposition and in serving Burningham with a subpoena. On appeal, Lloyd’s claims that: 1) the trial court erred in denying its motion to amend the complaint to include a cause of action for reformation; 2) the trial court erred in failing to award Lloyd’s its costs of depositions and service of subpoenas; and 3) the tri…
LLOYD’S UNLIMITED, a Corporation, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. NATURE’S WAY MARKETING, LTD., a Corporation, Defendant is worth reading on Utah deposition / former testimony because the court put the point in its own words: "Lloyd’s its requested costs incurred in taking Burningham’s deposition and in serving Burningham with a subpoena." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Benny J. GALLEGOS, and v. John W. TURNER, Warden, Utah State Prison, and
Benny J. GALLEGOS, and v. John W. TURNER, Warden, Utah State Prison, and, 1974 Utah LEXIS 602 (1974)
…hearsay evidence and inadmissible except: (1) (2) . . . (3) Depositions and Prior Testimony. (a) . . . (b) if the judge finds that the de-clarant is unavailable as a witness at the hearing, testimony given as a witness in another action or in a deposition taken in compliance with law in another action, when (i) . . . (ii) the issue is such that the adverse party on the former o…
Utah opinions such as Benny J. GALLEGOS, and v. John W. TURNER, Warden, Utah State Prison, and are cited where deposition / former testimony is disputed. The court stated: "Depositions and Prior Testimony. (a) . . . (b) if the judge finds that the de-clarant is unavailable as a witness at the hearing, testimony given as a witness in another action or in a deposition taken in compliance with law in another action, when (i) . . ." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
WHITE PINE RANCHES, and v. D.A. OSGUTHORPE, and
WHITE PINE RANCHES, and v. D.A. OSGUTHORPE, and, 49 Utah Adv. Rep. 18 (1986)
…dgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Rule 56(e) prescribes the form of the affidavits. Supporting and opposing affidavits…
On deposition / former testimony, WHITE PINE RANCHES, and v. D.A. OSGUTHORPE, and speaks to the Utah dispute in this passage: "Rule 56(e) prescribes the form of the affidavits." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Scott MARSHALL, D/B/A Marshall Fastening Systems, Plaintiff, v. Jack VAN GERVEN, D/B/A J & M Construction Co., Inc
…laiming that (1) the court erroneously refused to admit the deposition of an officer of B & E; (2) the court erroneously applied a “total cost” theory of damages; and (3) certain damages were erroneously awarded. J & M cross-appeals, claiming that it was entitled to rescission of the excavation and backfill subcontract and restitution. B & E and United (hereafter referred to co…
Scott MARSHALL, D/B/A Marshall Fastening Systems, Plaintiff, v. Jack VAN GERVEN, D/B/A J & M Construction Co., Inc is worth reading on Utah deposition / former testimony because the court put the point in its own words: "B & E; (2) the court erroneously applied a “total cost” theory of damages; and (3) certain damages were erroneously awarded. J & M cross-appeals, claiming that it was entitled to rescission of the excavation and backfill subcontract and restitution." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Authenticity: why it matters and how to prove it
Authenticity is not a hearsay doctrine and it is not optional. Under Utah R. Evid. 901, 902, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is. Self-authenticating categories — certified public records, newspapers, acknowledged documents, trade inscriptions, and (where adopted) certified domestic records of a regularly conducted activity — shorten the path, but most trial exhibits still need a sponsoring witness, distinctive characteristics, chain of custody, or process-or-system evidence.
Utah tech-sector, ski-resort, and polygamy-related historical cases require authenticated server logs, resort incident reports, and church records under Utah R. Evid. 901–902.
Why authenticity gets its own section in every Utah trial notebook:
- It is a condition precedent. An unauthenticated exhibit never reaches the relevance, hearsay, or privilege analysis in a useful way — the jury never properly considers it.
- Digital evidence multiplies the failure modes. Screenshots, social-media posts, text threads, and cloud downloads require hash values, account attribution, metadata, or a percipient witness who saw the content created or received.
- Chain of custody is authenticity by another name. Drugs, firearms, biological samples, and seized devices are excluded when the links from seizure to lab to courtroom are broken, even if a hearsay exception would otherwise apply to a lab report.
- Business-records shortcuts do not replace authentication. A custodian can explain record-keeping practices and still fail if nobody can say the particular PDF or printout is the record of this patient, this account, or this machine.
- Self-authentication is narrow. Counsel who wave a notarization or a letterhead and skip the rest of Rule 901-style analysis often lose when the document's contents are disputed.
Practical authentication checklist for Utah trials: identify the exhibit; choose a 901 method or a 902 category; line up the sponsoring witness or certificate; preserve chain-of-custody testimony for physical and digital items; and separate the authenticity objection from any hearsay objection so the court rules on each.
Utah authenticity opinions
STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Jacob J. LAMORIE, Defendant and Appellant
…tion recognized by Utah law, and (2) they were not properly authenticated as required by the laws of this state. Since, in the absence of the documents erroneously admitted, the State would have failed to establish an essential element of the offense charged, defendant is entitled to an acquittal. We are compelled to agree with so much of defendant’s argument as relates to auth…
Practitioners open STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Jacob J. LAMORIE, Defendant and Appellant when Utah authentication turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Utah law, and (2) they were not properly authenticated as required by the laws of this state. Since, in the absence of the documents erroneously admitted, the State would have failed to establish an essential element of the offense charged, defendant is entitled to an acquittal." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
The STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Forrest G. BUEL, Defendant and Appellant
…of the documents on the ground that they were not properly authenticated and were therefore hearsay. The trial court ruled that the evidence was admissible. On appeal, defendant raises three issues: sufficiency of the evidence, inadmissibility of the evidence of the prior conviction, and ineffective assistance of counsel. *703 Defendant first argues that the evidence of self-d…
The STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Forrest G. BUEL, Defendant and Appellant is worth reading on Utah authentication because the court put the point in its own words: "The trial court ruled that the evidence was admissible. On appeal, defendant raises three issues: sufficiency of the evidence, inadmissibility of the evidence of the prior conviction, and ineffective assistance of counsel." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Marvin Jean JACQUES, Defendant and Appellant
…authentic and admitted them into evidence. These supposedly authenticated samples of defendant’s handwriting were later compared by the handwriting expert to the handwriting on the forged prescription. On the basis of these samples, the expert was able to testify conclusively that the forged prescription was written by defendant. The jury returned its verdict of guilty, and the…
Utah opinions such as STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Marvin Jean JACQUES, Defendant and Appellant are cited where authentication is disputed. The court stated: "These supposedly authenticated samples of defendant’s handwriting were later compared by the handwriting expert to the handwriting on the forged prescription." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
State v. Sandoval
State v. Sandoval, 562 P.3d 731 (2024)
…al and the victim’s mother that he claims were not properly authenticated and (2) by failing to object to witness statements that he claims were unfairly prejudicial. We reject these arguments and affirm his conviction. State v. Sandoval BACKGROUND 1 ¶2 Robyn 2 and her mother (Mother) lived together in a house they rented from a landlord (Landlord). Another woman (Friend) lived…
On authentication, State v. Sandoval speaks to the Utah dispute in this passage: "We reject these arguments and affirm his conviction. State v. Sandoval BACKGROUND 1 ¶2 Robyn 2 and her mother (Mother) lived together in a house they rented from a landlord (Landlord)." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
STATE of Utah, Appellee, v. Tim G. WAGER, Appellant
STATE of Utah, Appellee, v. Tim G. WAGER, Appellant, 812 Utah Adv. Rep. 34 (2016)
…e and marijuana. The principal issue on appeal concerns the authentication at trial of a photograph obtained from Wager's ex-girlfriend. The photograph appears to show Wager sitting in his bathroom smoking a meth pipe. Uncontro-verted trial testimony established that the person in the photograph was Wager and that the bathroom in the photograph was his bathroom. The trial court…
Utah opinions such as STATE of Utah, Appellee, v. Tim G. WAGER, Appellant are cited where authentication is disputed. The court stated: "The principal issue on appeal concerns the authentication at trial of a photograph obtained from Wager's ex-girlfriend. The photograph appears to show Wager sitting in his bathroom smoking a meth pipe." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
GO INVEST WISELY LLC, Appellee, v. Blaine MURPHY, Appellant
GO INVEST WISELY LLC, Appellee, v. Blaine MURPHY, Appellant, 820 Utah Adv. Rep. 31 (2016)
…ffs motion for summary judgment, because the abstract was unauthenticated and was hearsay, and because the abstract did not constitute an affidavit or support an affidavit. Id. at 1077-78. In addition, Murphy cites several federal cases regarding summary judgment that explain that “before they can be treated as admissible, documents [in support of or in opposition to a motion f…
Practitioners open GO INVEST WISELY LLC, Appellee, v. Blaine MURPHY, Appellant when Utah authentication turns on the distinction in this sentence: "ffs motion for summary judgment, because the abstract was unauthenticated and was hearsay, and because the abstract did not constitute an affidavit or support an affidavit. Id. at 1077-78. In addition, Murphy cites several federal cases regarding summary judgment that explain tha" Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
State v. Welsh
State v. Welsh, 2022 UT App 112 (2022)
…rgued that although Victim would not testify, Officer could authenticate the messages by testifying that he took the photographs and describing the surrounding circumstances. In response, Welsh’s trial counsel (Trial Counsel) argued that Officer could not authenticate the texts because his knowledge of the messages was based on hearsay from Victim. ¶27 The court deferred ruling…
On authentication, State v. Welsh speaks to the Utah dispute in this passage: "Victim would not testify, Officer could authenticate the messages by testifying that he took the photographs and describing the surrounding circumstances." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Ray Clinton BIRMINGHAM, and v. Delmar L. Swede LARSON, Sheriff of Salt Lake County, and
…he law of that state, and the copy of the affidavit must be authenticated by the executive authority making the demand. The affidavit in this case charges that the appellant committed a series of thefts of cash totaling $7408.11. The district attorney of Louisiana in his application to his governor for extradition states that the defendant [appellant herein] fled from Louisiana…
Ray Clinton BIRMINGHAM, and v. Delmar L. Swede LARSON, Sheriff of Salt Lake County, and is worth reading on Utah authentication because the court put the point in its own words: "The affidavit in this case charges that the appellant committed a series of thefts of cash totaling $7408.11." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Practice checklist
- State the relevance theory in one sentence before naming an exception.
- Run the 403 / unfair-prejudice balance explicitly for other-acts and graphic exhibits.
- For character or other-acts evidence, identify the non-propensity purpose and request a limiting instruction on the record.
- Decide whether an out-of-court statement is hearsay for the purpose offered before hunting exceptions.
- Lay business-records foundations with time, knowledge, regular practice, and custodial qualifications — or a qualifying certification.
- Prove unavailability with specific facts before offering former testimony or dying declarations.
- Treat deposition use as procedure-plus-hearsay; designate and counter-designate early.
- Authenticate every exhibit under Utah R. Evid. 901, 902 (or the self-authentication path) before arguing hearsay.
- Preserve chain of custody for physical and digital evidence with named custodians.
- Search LawDiver for recent Utah appellate evidence opinions before mediation or motions in limine.
Contents
- General standards of admissibility
- Character evidence
- Hearsay: start with the definition
- Party admissions
- Business records
- Important hearsay exceptions that do not require unavailability
- Declarant unavailable
- Dying declarations
- Medical diagnosis or treatment statements
- Use of depositions at trial
- Authenticity: why it matters and how to prove it
- Practice checklist
- Frequently asked questions
General standards of admissibility
Utah starts every evidence dispute with relevance and unfair prejudice. Under Utah R. Evid. 401, 403, evidence is relevant when it has any tendency to make a fact of consequence more or less probable, and relevant evidence is still excluded when its probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, confusion, or waste of time. Preliminary questions of admissibility are for the court; conditional relevance and limited-purpose instructions keep otherwise-usable proof from becoming a Trojan horse for propensity or truth-of-the-matter use.
Utah publishes official commentaries to its evidence rules. Utah R. Evid. 404(b) governs other crimes, wrongs, or acts with localized case law.
Practice tip: articulate the theory of relevance in one sentence before citing the exception. Lawyers who lead with "it's a business record" without explaining what fact the record proves often lose the 403 balance even when the hearsay foundation is clean.
Character evidence
Character evidence in Utah is governed by Utah R. Evid. 404, 405. The default rule is familiar: evidence of a person's character or character trait is not admissible to prove that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character or trait. The same body of law then carves out the classic exceptions — essential-element character, accused-opens-the-door reputation or opinion, and other-acts evidence offered for a non-propensity purpose such as motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake.
Other-acts notice, 403 balancing, and limiting instructions do most of the real work. In criminal cases, prosecutors who dump prior misconduct without a specific non-propensity theory invite reversal; defense counsel who open the door to good-character testimony without anticipating rebuttal create the very propensity inference the rules were designed to police.
Utah character-evidence opinions
STATE of Utah, Appellant, v. Robert Damien THORNTON, Appellee
STATE of Utah, Appellant, v. Robert Damien THORNTON, Appellee, 833 Utah Adv. Rep. 42 (2017)
…red in failing to perform a “scrupulous examination” of the character evidence introduced by the prosecution. Id. ¶ 38. For years our cases have used this phrase in describing the district court's role in assessing character evidence under rule 404(b). See, e.g., State v. Decorso, 1999 UT 57, ¶ 18, 993 P.2d 837; State v. Lucero, 2014 UT 15, ¶ 37, 328 P.3d 841. The court of appe…
Practitioners open STATE of Utah, Appellant, v. Robert Damien THORNTON, Appellee when Utah character evidence turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Id. ¶ 38. For years our cases have used this phrase in describing the district court's role in assessing character evidence under rule 404(b). See, e.g., State v. Decorso, 1999 UT 57, ¶ 18, 993 P.2d 837; State v. Lucero, 2014 UT 15, ¶ 37, 328 P.3d 841." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
STATE of Utah, and v. James Eric VERDE, and
STATE of Utah, and v. James Eric VERDE, and, 718 Utah Adv. Rep. 115 (2012)
…ould "threaten[ ] to undo the essential protection that the character evidence prohibition is designed to afford an accused." 15 This we decline to do. I 42 Under Ewoldt, evidence that a defendant had committed three D.U.Ls on the same road (perhaps even in the same car, with the same type of alcohol, on the same day of the week) presumably could be offered to prove the defenda…
On character evidence, STATE of Utah, and v. James Eric VERDE, and speaks to the Utah dispute in this passage: "This we decline to do. I 42 Under Ewoldt, evidence that a defendant had committed three D.U." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Jeffrey Dean MARTIN, Defendant and Appellant
…d herself similarly in this case." 136 The admissibility of character evidence is controlled by rules 404 and 405 of the Utah Rules of Evidence. As a general principle, rule 404 prohibits introduction of evidence concerning "a person's character or *813a trait of character ... for the purpose of proving action in conformity therewith on a particular occasion." Utah R. Evid. 404…
Practitioners open STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Jeffrey Dean MARTIN, Defendant and Appellant when Utah character evidence turns on the distinction in this sentence: "The admissibility of character evidence is controlled by rules 404 and 405 of the Utah Rules of Evidence. As a general principle, rule 404 prohibits introduction of evidence concerning 'a person's character or *813a trait of character ..." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
STATE of Utah, Appellee, v. Komasquin LOPEZ, Appellant.
STATE of Utah, Appellee, v. Komasquin LOPEZ, Appellant., 417 P.3d 116 (2018)
…acked an adequate foundation. Next, Lopez contends that the character evidence should not have been admitted because it was not relevant, not offered for a proper purpose, and was prejudicial. Lopez also argues cumulative error and claims there was insufficient evidence to convict him. ¶ 18 We review the admission of expert testimony and character evidence under an abuse of dis…
Utah opinions such as STATE of Utah, Appellee, v. Komasquin LOPEZ, Appellant. are cited where character evidence is disputed. The court stated: "Next, Lopez contends that the character evidence should not have been admitted because it was not relevant, not offered for a proper purpose, and was prejudicial. Lopez also argues cumulative error and claims there was insufficient evidence to convict him." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
STATE of Utah, Appellee, v. Anthony Charles MURPHY, Appellant. — Harris, J., concurring
…vidence 227 (2018-19 ed.); see also Kenneth J. Melilli, The Character Evidence Rule Revisited , 1998 B.Y.U. L. Rev. 1547, 1556 (1998) (hereinafter "Melilli") (stating that "creative prosecutors will usually be successful in generating a theory for introducing evidence of the defendant's prior, uncharged misbehavior before the jury"). One theory that-increasingly in recent years…
On character evidence, STATE of Utah, Appellee, v. Anthony Charles MURPHY, Appellant. — Harris, J., concurring speaks to the Utah dispute in this passage: "Kenneth J. Melilli, The Character Evidence Rule Revisited , 1998 B.Y.U. L. Rev." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
State v. Gallegos
State v. Gallegos, 479 P.3d 631 (2020)
…al argument, asserting that the prior acts evidence was not character evidence at all, because it was not intended to say anything about who Gallegos was as a person, but instead was intended merely to inform the jury of certain acts he had committed. We discuss each of these arguments, in turn. 1 ¶24 To be sure, “knowledge” can be a proper non-character purpose under rule 404(…
On character evidence, State v. Gallegos speaks to the Utah dispute in this passage: "Gallegos was as a person, but instead was intended merely to inform the jury of certain acts he had committed. We discuss each of these arguments, in turn." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Frequently asked questions
What is the primary evidence source in Utah?
Utah applies the Utah Rules of Evidence. Utah's rules track the FRE; Utah R. Evid. 401–902 govern district and justice court trials.
How do Utah courts decide relevance and unfair prejudice?
Under Utah R. Evid. 401, 403, evidence must make a fact of consequence more or less probable, and the court may exclude relevant evidence when unfair prejudice, confusion, or waste of time substantially outweighs its probative value.
Are party admissions hearsay in Utah?
Party-opponent statements under Utah R. Evid. 801(d)(2) are generally excluded from the hearsay ban (or treated as an exception, depending on local drafting). They may be offered against the party who made or adopted them without showing unavailability.
What foundation is required for business records?
Under Utah R. Evid. 803(6), show a record made at or near the time from someone with knowledge, kept in the course of a regularly conducted activity, as a regular practice, through a custodian, qualified witness, or allowed certification — subject to trustworthiness attack.
When can I use a deposition at trial in Utah?
Utah R. Civ. P. 30 and 32 govern civil depositions and trial use. Utah R. Crim. P. 16 controls criminal discovery; prior testimony may be admitted under Utah R. Evid. 804(b)(1).
Why is authenticity separate from hearsay?
Authenticity asks whether the item is what you claim it is; hearsay asks whether out-of-court assertions inside it may be used for their truth. You can lose on either ground independently. Utah authenticity practice starts with Utah R. Evid. 901, 902.
Where do dying declarations and medical statements fit?
Dying declarations under Utah R. Evid. 804(b)(2) require belief in impending death and concern the cause or circumstances of that believed death. Medical statements under Utah R. Evid. 803(4) require a genuine diagnostic or treatment purpose and reasonable pertinence to care.