State v. Johnson (1987)

In State v. Johnson, 748 P.2d 1069 (Utah 1987), the Court recognized an exception to the rule that "'under Rule 4 of the Utah Rules of Evidence, a specific objection is required even where a pretrial motion to suppress has been made.'" 748 P.2d at 1071. Specifically, the Court ruled that "a defendant is not required to object or to renew his motion to suppress at trial where the trial judge is also the judge who ruled on the pretrial motion." Id. Then-current rule 4 has since been replaced by current rule 103, see Utah R. Evid. 103 advisory committee's notes, and Utah Rules of Evidence 103 expressly contains the rule adopted in Johnson. See Utah R. Evid. 103 ("Once the court makes a definitive ruling on the record admitting or excluding evidence, either at or before trial, a party need not renew an objection or offer of proof to preserve a claim of error for appeal."). The holding in Johnson, was codified in rule 103, is specific to "definitive rulings" on the admissibility of evidence. Id.