State v. Law

6 Citing cases

  1. Doctors' v. Drezga

    2009 UT 60 (Utah 2009)   Cited 35 times
    Finding no substantial prejudice when an insurer's briefs "d[id] not suggest a single reason why the . . . suit would have ended differently" had there been cooperation, and when the insurer's allegations were merely "self-serving and conclusory"

    Because this was an exceedingly belated attempt to introduce new evidence, we decline to consider these supplemental materials as part of the record. See State v. Law, 2003 UT App 228, ¶ 2, 75 P.3d 923 (noting that motions to supplement the record are inappropriate if used to "introduce new material into the record"). ¶ 6 The malpractice suit went to trial in December 2000 and resulted in a judgment against Drezga worth nearly $2.3 million.

  2. State v. Guerro

    2021 UT App. 136 (Utah Ct. App. 2021)   Cited 13 times

    ¶48 Because the DNA report is not a part of the record, and because Guerro has not sought remand to the trial court under rule 23B to provide for its consideration, we determine that he has not carried his burden of proof to show that Counsel rendered ineffective assistance with respect to not calling a witness to testify about the report. See State v. Law, 2003 UT App 228, ¶ 2, 75 P.3d 923 ("Because the [d]efendant attempts to introduce evidence on appeal not contained within the record, we cannot consider this issue on appeal.").

  3. State v. Cline

    397 P.3d 675 (Utah Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 1 times

    Generally, a ... sentence should be overturned only when it is inherently unfair or clearly excessive." State v. Law , 2003 UT App 228, ¶ 5, 75 P.3d 923 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).¶8 Defendant argues that while "some jail time and probation" would have been appropriate, the decision to impose 180 days of jail followed by 24 months of probation was not supported by the record.

  4. Maness v. Dept. of Commerce

    2008 UT App. 180 (Utah Ct. App. 2008)

    Maness asserts that the preliminary hearing transcript in his criminal case and a recording made in the course of the criminal case should be part of the administrative record on review, although the materials were not made a part of the record of the adjudicative proceeding. However, it is well settled that new material may not be added to the record on review or appeal. See State v. Law, 2003 UT App 228, ¶ 2, 75 P.3d 923 (mem.). Maness argues, without support, that a record of any hearing with testimony given under oath is part of the record of an adjudicative proceeding.

  5. Meyers v. Meyers

    2005 UT App. 50 (Utah Ct. App. 2005)

    "An appellate court's review is . . . limited to the evidence contained in the record on appeal." State v. Law, 2003 UT App 228, ¶ 2, 75 P.3d 923. Therefore, the evidence is not properly before this court and may not be considered on appeal. See id.

  6. State v. Stephenson

    2004 UT App. 145 (Utah Ct. App. 2004)

    Judge Harding's rulings were entirely reasonable and appropriate based on the evidence, law, and arguments of the parties. Thus, because "there is nothing in the record suggesting Judge Harding was under the influence of any drug during any of Defendant's proceedings and, . . . [Defendant] cannot show if or how Judge Harding, by reason of drug use, abused his discretion . . . [or demonstrate] how Defendant's due process rights were violated," State v. Law, 2003 UT App 228, ¶ 3, 75 P.3d 923 (mem.), Defendant's due process claim fails. Defendant also asserts a variety of other claims on appeal that are unsupported by any legal authority, analysis, or record citations.