Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): P.3d 516 (quoting State v. Reed, 2000 UT 68, ¶18, 8 P.3d 1025). Additionally, the prejudice must be "such that there is a reasonable likelihood the jury would have reached a more favorable result absent the comments." Reed, 2000 UT 68, 1 18, 8 P.3d 1025. Unlike the majority, however, I would hold that Defendant has satisfied his burden in meeting this two-prong test. ¶ 25 First, the prosecutor called the jurors' attention to matters not proper for their consideration. - During closing arguments, the prosecutor relied on information not admitted into evidence and implied both that Defendant had stolen software licenses and that Myers could not have legally consented to Defendant taking the computer because of that software. See generally State v. Kohl, 2000 UT 35, ¶¶ 23-24, 999 P.2d 7 (<HOLDING>). Further, the charge against the Defendant 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that district court had not abused discretion in denying rule 59 motion because no persuasive reason has been shown why this evidence could not have been presented during the trial nor does it appear that it would have altered the result (B) holding that it is inappropriate to make a claim to the jury during closing arguments when no evidence hals been presented during trial to support it (C) holding that to obtain the proper context of a challenged statement made during closing arguments the court must recount in its entirety the portion of the closing argument wherein those statements appear (D) holding that plaintiffs failure to object to the improper comments of defendant during closing arguments resulted in waiver of plaintiffs right to argue the issue on appeal because the trial court was not given an opportunity to rule on the issue (E) holding that this court has discretion to hear arguments presented to it in the first instance provided that it otherwise has jurisdiction over the claim
Output (English): holding that district court had not abused discretion in denying rule 59 motion because no persuasive reason has been shown why this evidence could not have been presented during the trial nor does it appear that it would have altered the result