Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 76-77, 105 S.Ct. 1087, 84 L.Ed.2d 53 (1985). 15 . Utah Code Ann. §§ 77-32-101 to -704 (2003 & Supp.2005). 16 . Burns, 2000 UT 56, ¶ 24, 4 P.3d 795. 17 . Utah Code Ann. § 77-32-301(3) (2003). 18 . Burns, 2000 UT 56, ¶ 25, 4 P.3d 795. 19 . Bd. of Educ. v. Sandy City Corp., 2004 UT 37, ¶ 9, 94 P.3d 234. 20 . See 1A Norman J. Singer, Statutes and Statutory Construction §§ 22.29-22.30 (6th ed.2002) (discussing the presumption that an amendment was intended to change the prior statute; also discussing other tools of construction applicable to amendments). 21 . Burns, 2000 UT 56, ¶ 24, 4 P.3d 795. 22 . Act of March 5, 1997, ch. 307, §§ 1-5, 1997 Utah Laws 1181, 1181-82. 23 . Id. §§ 3-4, (codified as amended at Utah Code Ann. §§ 77-32-304.5, -305 .2d 83, 92 (1984) (<HOLDING>). 38 . Supra ¶¶ 14-15. 39 . Utah Code Ann. § 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that right to testify not denied where inter alia defendant made no objection to his attorneys statements that defendant would not testify and made no request to testify (B) holding that dismissal with leave to amend should be granted even if no request to amend was made (C) holding no error where the court initially granted 500 for an investigator and defendant made no subsequent request for additional funds (D) holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants motion for additional funds where defendant had not shown exhaustion of the 500 granted (E) recognizing two aspects to assertion of fifth amendment rights 1 a reasonable police officer in the circumstances would understand request was made for an attorney and 2 the request was for assistance with a custodial interrogation not for subsequent hearings or proceedings
Output (English): holding that right to testify not denied where inter alia defendant made no objection to his attorneys statements that defendant would not testify and made no request to testify