The Accomplice Must Encourage the Principal

State of Utah v. Warren Steed Jeffs, 2010 UT 49, (Utah Supreme Court July 27, 2010).

Jeffs was convicted of two counts of rape as an accomplice for compelling a fourteen-year-old to marry her nineteen-year-old cousin.  Jeffs appealed based on the instruction regarding consent.  The trial court refused to give an instruction which required the jury to return a verdict of not guilty unless they found that Jeffs had intended that the victim’s husband to engage in sexual intercourse with her.  The Court noted that to convict Jeffs of accomplice to rape, the state must establish that Jeffs solicited, requested, commanded, encouraged, or intentionally aided husband to have nonconsensual intercourse with victim.  The State never presented any evidence as to Husband’s interactions with Jeffs or any statements from Jeffs to Husband.  The State argued that certain communications with the victim were sufficient for accomplice to rape, however, the Supreme Court interpreted the statute to mean that the actions of the soliciting, requesting, etc… must be done in relation to the principal actor of the crime and not to the victim.  Finding that the instruction requested by Jeffs was reasonable and that the underlying communication from Jeffs was insufficient to support the accomplice charge, the Court Reversed the conviction and Remanded the case for a new trial.

Full Decision available at http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/supopin/Jeffs072710.pdf

Bind Over Under SYOA is as Simple as an Inference, and Premeditation Requires Only Some Reflection

Utah v. I.R.C. 2010 UT 41, (Utah Supreme Court, May 14, 2010).

I.R.C. was bound over for trial as an adult for aggravated robbery.  In order to bind a case over to the criminal court, the charges must be of those enumerated in statute, and prosecution must present sufficient evidence to support a reasonable belief that Defendant committed the crime.  The trial court found that there was sufficient evidence to believe that I.R.C. was aware that the robbery would be committed with a weapon.  A juvenile court may retain the case if the minor shows that he has not been previously adjudicated as delinquent, that he has a lesser degree of culpability than any co-defendants, and the minor’s role in the crime was not violent, aggressive, or premeditated.  In this case, the juvenile did not prove that he had not premeditated the crime.  I.R.C. knew about the crime and drove his friend to the scene of the crime.  Because there was a reasonable inference that I.R.C. knew about the weapon and because he failed to prove the retention factors, the Supreme Court Affirmed the juvenile court.

Dissent: Durham concludes that the friend’s statements did not give I.R.C. notice that gun was going to be used and the testimony does not support the reasonable inference that he knew, as such, the crime would not be aggravated robbery and thus, could not be bound over.

Full Decision available at  http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/supopin/IRC051410.pdf