Skip to content

Find a Lawyer
Information & Analysis

Contact

Search

Stone River Law – A Utah Law Firm

Mapp v. Ohio – Exclusionary Rule in State Prosecutions

Call Us – 801-448-7451

Category: United States Supreme Court

Mapp v. Ohio – Exclusionary Rule in State Prosecutions

Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) extended the applicability of the exclusionary rule to include criminal prosecutions in state courts.
Read more….

“

When it came time for the arraignment, Brad was able to negotiate with the prosecutor a plea in abeyance, which was the best possible outcome.

5-Star Attorney Reviews

Names withheld to protect client privacy and confidentiality.

Tell us how we can help.

Search

Stone River Law, PLLC
952 S. Main St., Suite A
Layton, UT 84041

Home
Criminal Defense
Adoptions
Estate Planning
About Stone River

Search

Call US – 801-448-7451

State v. Menzies, 2025 UT 38 Utah Supreme Court Halts Execution of Ralph Menzies Over Dementia Concerns The high court’s unanimous decision in State v. Menzies, 2025 UT 38, emphasizes that individuals facing execution must have a rational understanding of why the state is executing them. Based on new medical evaluations, the court found that Menzies may no longer meet that constitutional standard. Conviction and Diagnosis Menzies was convicted of the 1986 murder of Maurine Hunsaker and sentenced to death in 1988. Decades of appeals followed. In early 2024, the State…

State v. Dutton, 2025 UT App139 A Real Life Example Involving Probable Cause Facts of the Case In July 2020, a bank employee in Kanab, Utah, called 911 to report a customer exhibiting concerning behavior. The caller stated that the customer, later identified as Dutton, appeared disoriented, spoke slowly, and seemed “pretty out of it.” The employee also reported that Dutton drove away from the bank in an erratic manner. The Kanab City Police Department dispatched a sergeant to investigate. Kanab is a small town, and the sergeant had known Dutton…

Good attorneys ignore this statute. Great… Utah’s Affirmative Defense Statute and the Burden of Proof Utah Code section 76-1-502 states that evidence of an affirmative defense (such as self defense) must be “presented by the defendant.” This statute is indirect conflict with important constitutional protections (guaranteed by both the Utah State Constitution and the U.S. Constitution) relating to the prosecution’s burden of proof and the fundamental presumption of innocence required by due process. Good criminal defense attorneys should be AWARE of this statute. But they must also understand and realize that…

Serving Clients Statewide – Stone River Law
Offices in Layton – Davis County

Copyright Stone River Law, PLLC
Design by Stephen W. Howard, PC