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

One Eyewitness Is Enough

State of Utah v. Brandon Lee Sandoval, 2010 UT App. 3, (Utah Court of Appeals, January 14, 2010).

Brandon Lee Sandoval was convicted of aggravated burglary and now appeals based on a jury instruction given by the trial court that stated that conviction can be based on the uncorroborated testimony of a single eyewitness. The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction finding that such an instruction did not give additional credibility to any one witness at trial. “The instruction merely told the jury that, if it chose to believe the eyewitness, it could convict Sandoval without concern that the eyewitness testimony was not corroborated.”

Full Decision available at http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/mds/sandoval011410.pdf

If The Jury Instruction is Superfluous, It is not Error to Exclude It.

State of Utah v. Malcolm, 2009 UT App. 399, (Utah Court of Appeals, December 31, 2009).

Defendant was convicted of murder.  Defendant appealed because the trial court refused to give certain jury instructions.  The first instruction instructed as to the use of force when making a citizen’s arrest.  The second, instructed as to the use force when reclaiming property.  Because neither instruction would have supported defendant’s theory of the case, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court.

Full Decision available at http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/mds/malcolm123109.pdf