State v. Saunders

Decision Date31 October 1995
Citation910 P.2d 425
PartiesState v. Saunders NO. 950295
CourtUtah Supreme Court
Lower Court Citation: 893 P.2d 584
Disposition: Granted

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • State v. Saunders
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • 11 Junio 1999
    ...State v. Saunders, 893 P.2d 584, 592-93 (Utah Ct.App. 1995), and we issued a writ of certiorari to review that court's decision. 910 P.2d 425 (Utah 1995). We now reverse and I. FACTS ¶ 2 Defendant married Deborah Smith in January 1980. They had three children, a girl (B.C.) and two sons. Th......
  • State v. Finlayson
    • United States
    • Utah Court of Appeals
    • 2 Abril 1998
    ... ... church may deem defendant more credible because they were members of the same "flock." "Counsel's performance will not be deemed deficient unless no conceivable tactical basis exists for counsel's actions." State v. Saunders, 893 P.2d 584, 592 (Utah Ct.App.), cert. granted, 910 P.2d 425 (Utah 1995). Thus, because we find that trial counsel may have had a legitimate tactical reason for not questioning the jury regarding these issues, we reject defendant's argument. See id. (holding trial counsel may have had ... ...
  • State v. Hall
    • United States
    • Utah Court of Appeals
    • 11 Septiembre 1997
    ... ... See id ...         Turning to defendant's arguments regarding Rule 610, we note that if an error was not obvious to the trial court, it most likely was not obvious to trial counsel. See State v. Saunders, 893 P.2d 584, 592 (Utah.Ct.App.), cert. granted, 910 P.2d 425 (Utah 1995). "It follows that the failure of counsel to object to an alleged error that is not readily apparent cannot constitute an objectively deficient performance." Id. Therefore, having previously concluded that any error under ... ...
  • State v. Winward
    • United States
    • Utah Court of Appeals
    • 12 Junio 1997
    ... ... In the instant case, appellant had " ' "no right to set forth to the jury all the facts which tend in his favor without laying himself open to a cross-examination upon those facts." ' " Tucker, 800 P.2d at 823 (citations omitted). See also State v. Saunders, 893 P.2d 584, 591 (Utah.Ct.App.) (where defendant opens the door on direct examination, state is entitled to elicit clarifying information), cert. granted, 910 P.2d 425 (Utah 1995). During the challenged cross-examination, the prosecutor did not mention appellant's exercise of his right to ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT