court's decision to deny Mora's motion to withdraw his guilty plea because any error committed by the trial court was harmless. Rule 30 of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that any error "which does not affect the substantial rights of a party shall be disregarded." Utah R.Crim. P. 30(@). In this case, we decline to determine whether the harmless error doctrine applies to rule 11 violations. During the plea colloquy, the trial court failed to inform Mora that, if he chose to go to trial, the State carried the burden of proving him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The right to require the State to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is guaranteed by the due process clauses of the Utah and the United States Constitutions. See State v. Lopes, 1999 UT 24, ¶ 13, 980 P.2d 191 (<HOLDING>). "It is well established under Utah law that
holding that the due process clause requires that the prosecution bear the burden of proving every essential element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt and evidentiary presumptions in a jury charge that have the effect of relieving the government of that burden are therefore unconstitutional holding state must prove every element of an offense beyond a reasonable doubt and a scheme that shifts the burden of proof to the defendant by presuming a fact upon proof of the other elements of the offense violates due process holding that as both a state and federal constitutional matter we conclude that due process requires that the prosecution prove every element of the charged crimes beyond a reasonable doubt citing utah const art i  7 us const amends v xiv other citations omitted holding due process clause requires the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt all of the elements included in the definition of the charged offense and new york law that requires the defendant in a second degree murder prosecution to prove by a preponderance of the evidence the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance in order to reduce the crime to manslaughter when no element of the charged offense is presumed does not violate the due process clause holding that me const art 1  5 does not require the state to prove probable cause for a search beyond a reasonable doubt