mens rea requirement in Utah

2021See State v. Barela, 2015 UT 22, ¶ 26 , 349 P.3d 676 (finding that, ―by coupling the mens rea requirement directly with [one element of the offense], and by articulating the [other element] without any apparent counterpart requirement of mens rea,‖ the instruction erroneously conveyed that the ―mens rea requirement . . . applied only to the‖ first element).

2021See State v. Barela, 2015 UT 22, ¶ 26 , 349 P.3d 676 (finding that, ―by coupling the mens rea requirement directly with [one element of the offense], and by articulating the [other element] without any apparent counterpart requirement of mens rea,‖ the instruction erroneously conveyed that the ―mens rea requirement . . . applied only to the‖ first element).

2015See Powell v. Texas, 392 U.S. 514, 535 , 88 S.Ct. 2145 , 20 L.Ed.2d 1254 (1968) (noting that the United States Supreme Court "has never articulated a general constitutional doctrine of mens rea"). ¶ 14 The authorities relied upon by T.S. did not hold that adjudication of a juvenile as delinquent is unconstitutional when the juvenile was unaware that his or her behavior was proscribed. 5 Rather, these cases recognized the immaturity of adolescent brains and held that, as a consequence, (1) juveniles are less culpable than adults, (2) the most severe punishments meted out to adults may amount to

2015See Powell v. Texas, 392 U.S. 514, 535 , 88 S.Ct. 2145 , 20 L.Ed.2d 1254 (1968) (noting that the United States Supreme Court "has never articulated a general constitutional doctrine of mens rea"). ¶ 14 The authorities relied upon by T.S. did not hold that adjudication of a juvenile as delinquent is unconstitutional when the juvenile was unaware that his or her behavior was proscribed. 5 Rather, these cases recognized the immaturity of adolescent brains and held that, as a consequence, (1) juveniles are less culpable than adults, (2) the most severe punishments meted out to adults may amount to

2019But in that case, we reversed because the jury instructions failed to give "the mens rea requirement embodied in subsection (7) of the statute." Id. at 608 .

1999The State must prove every element of a crime to convict an accused defendant, see Utah Code Ann. § 76-1-501 (1) (1995); cf. State v. Stringham, 957 P.2d 602, 608 (Utah Ct.App.1998), and jury instruction number seven did not fairly instruct the jury on the mens rea requirement for the charged offense. “ ‘[Bjecause “ ‘[t]he general rule is that an accurate instruction upon the basic elements of an offense is essential,’ ” failure to provide such an instruction is reversible error that can never be considered harmless.’ ” Stringham, 957 P.2d at 608 (quoting Souza, 846 P.2d at 1320 (citations omi

2015None of these considerations cireum-scribe the legislature's power to "declare what constitutes an offense against society and to define the elements that constitute such an offense." See United States v. Ransom, 942 F.2d 775, 776, 777 (10th Cir.1991) (noting the "long history of statutory rape as a recognized exception to the requirement of criminal intent").

2015None of these considerations circumscribe the legislature’s power to “declare what constitutes an offense against society and to define the elements that constitute such an offense.” See United States v. Ransom, 942 F.2d 775, 776, 777 (10th Cir. 1991) (noting the “long history of statutory rape as a recognized exception to the requirement of criminal intent”).

2015See State v. Powell, 2007 UT 9, ¶¶ 2, 19 , 154 P.3d 788 ("Although the jury instruction regarding mens rea was erroneous, the error was harmless."); State v. Casey, 2003 UT 55 , ¶¶ 43, 46, 82 P.3d 1106 (holding that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that attempted murder can be committed "knowingly," but that "no harm resulted" in the case); State v. Fontana, 680 P.2d 1042, 1049 (Utah 1984) (holding that any error in the mens rea instruction "was not prejudicial and cannot serve as the basis for reversal"). 4 .

2015See State v. Powell, 2007 UT 9, ¶¶ 2, 19 , 154 P.3d 788 ("Although the jury instruction regarding mens rea was erroneous, the error was harmless."); State v. Casey, 2003 UT 55 , ¶¶ 43, 46, 82 P.3d 1106 (holding that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that attempted murder can be committed "knowingly," but that "no harm resulted" in the case); State v. Fontana, 680 P.2d 1042, 1049 (Utah 1984) (holding that any error in the mens rea instruction "was not prejudicial and cannot serve as the basis for reversal"). 4 .

2022Accordingly, by virtue of Utah Code section 76-2-102, the enticement provision has a scienter provision. ¶44 And in any event, although the United States Supreme Court has stated that “a scienter requirement may mitigate a law’s vagueness,” Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 499 (1982), it “has never suggested that the absence of a mens rea requirement, by itself, renders a statute 20121040-CA 20 2022 UT App 39 State v. Ray unconstitutional,” Hotel & Motel Ass’n of Oakland v. City of Oakland, 344 F.3d 959, 973 (9th Cir. 2003).

2022Accordingly, by virtue of Utah Code section 76-2-102, the enticement provision has a scienter provision. ¶44 And in any event, although the United States Supreme Court has stated that “a scienter requirement may mitigate a law’s vagueness,” Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 499 (1982), it “has never suggested that the absence of a mens rea requirement, by itself, renders a statute unconstitutional,” Hotel & Motel Ass’n of Oakland v. City of Oakland, 344 F.3d 959, 973 (9th Cir. 2003).

2022See Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703, 732 (2000); Karlin v. Foust, 188 F.3d 446, 463 (7th Cir. 1999).

2022See Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703, 732 (2000); Karlin v. Foust, 188 F.3d 446, 463 (7th Cir. 1999).

2022See Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703, 732 (2000); Karlin v. Foust, 188 F.3d 446, 463 (7th Cir. 1999).

2022See Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703, 732 (2000); Karlin v. Foust, 188 F.3d 446, 463 (7th Cir. 1999).

2022Accordingly, by virtue of Utah Code section 76-2-102, the enticement provision has a scienter provision. ¶44 And in any event, although the United States Supreme Court has stated that “a scienter requirement may mitigate a law’s vagueness,” Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 499 (1982), it “has never suggested that the absence of a mens rea requirement, by itself, renders a statute 20121040-CA 20 2022 UT App 39 State v. Ray unconstitutional,” Hotel & Motel Ass’n of Oakland v. City of Oakland, 344 F.3d 959, 973 (9th Cir. 2003).

2022Accordingly, by virtue of Utah Code section 76-2-102, the enticement provision has a scienter provision. ¶44 And in any event, although the United States Supreme Court has stated that “a scienter requirement may mitigate a law’s vagueness,” Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 499 (1982), it “has never suggested that the absence of a mens rea requirement, by itself, renders a statute unconstitutional,” Hotel & Motel Ass’n of Oakland v. City of Oakland, 344 F.3d 959, 973 (9th Cir. 2003).

2017Reigelsperger must establish a reasonable probability that, but for the error, “ ‘the result of the proceeding would have been different,’ ” or in other words, “ ‘a probability sufficient to undermine [our] confidence in the outcome.’” See id. ¶ 27 (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)). ¶77 Failure to properly link the mens rea requirement with the element of nonconsent certainly may undermine our confidence in a sexual’ assault conviction, depending on the circumstances.

2017Reigelsperger must establish a reasonable probability that, but for the error, “ ‘the result of the proceeding would have been different,’ ” or in other words, “ ‘a probability sufficient to undermine [our] confidence in the outcome.’” See id. ¶ 27 (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)). ¶77 Failure to properly link the mens rea requirement with the element of nonconsent certainly may undermine our confidence in a sexual’ assault conviction, depending on the circumstances.

2020See Jeffs, 2010 UT 49, ¶ 49 ; Eyre, 2019 UT App 162, ¶ 19 .

2019Because we conclude Trial Counsel was not ineffective and the court correctly denied the motion for a mistrial, “there are no errors to accumulate, and the cumulative error doctrine does not apply.” State v. Squires, 2019 UT App 113 , ¶ 45 n.10. 20180016-CA 4 2019 UT App 162 State v. Eyre that misstated the mens rea requirement for accomplice liability and for failing to ensure Exhibit 11 was not sent into the jury room.

2015The trial court‘s failure to instruct the jury in Mr. Reece‘s case was harmless error ¶40 We now turn to the question of whether the trial court‘s erroneous denial of Mr. Reece‘s requested lesser-included-offense instructions ―affected the outcome of the proceedings.‖71 The trial 65 Powell, 2007 UT 9, ¶¶ 19 , 21–23 (holding that a jury instruction that erroneously stated that the mens rea requirement for attempted murder was ―knowing‖ or ―depraved indifference‖ was harmless error because ―the uncontested evidence would allow the jury only one reasonable conclusion: that [the defendant] intenti

2015State v. Starks, 627 P.2d 88, 91-92 (Utah 1981). 67 .

2020On appeal, Hamilton contends “the mens rea (continued…) 20180620-CA 5 2020 UT App 11 State v. Hamilton “We review inconsistency challenges to jury verdicts in the light most favorable to the verdict and will not overturn a jury’s verdict of criminal conviction unless reasonable minds could not rationally have arrived at a verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt based on the law and evidence presented.” State v. Peterson, 2019 UT App 193, ¶ 22 (quotation simplified).

2020See State v. Jeffs, 2010 UT 49, ¶ 49 , 243 P.3d 1250 (“It is not necessary for the accomplice to have the same intent that the principal actor possessed as long as the (continued…) 20180985-CA 23 2020 UT App 142 State v. Bermejo instructions, the mens rea requirement for accomplice liability was adequately explained to the jury.

2020See State v. Jeffs, 2010 UT 49, ¶ 49 , 243 P.3d 1250 (“It is not necessary for the accomplice to have the same intent that the principal actor possessed as long as the (continued…) 20180985-CA 23 2020 UT App 142 State v. Bermejo instructions, the mens rea requirement for accomplice liability was adequately explained to the jury.

2020See State v. Jeffs, 2010 UT 49, ¶ 49 , 243 P.3d 1250 (“It is not necessary for the accomplice to have the same intent that the principal actor possessed as long as the (continued…) 20180985-CA 23 2020 UT App 142 State v. Bermejo instructions, the mens rea requirement for accomplice liability was adequately explained to the jury.

2020According to Jones, the instruction improperly lowered the State’s burden of proof because it allowed the jury to convict if it believed Jones was merely reckless as to the involvement of a “substantial risk of loss.” Thus, Jones contends that trial counsel performed deficiently by stipulating to the instruction. ¶44 But “the proper measure of attorney performance [is] simply reasonableness under prevailing professional norms,” State v. Silva, 2019 UT 36, ¶ 20 (cleaned up), and Jones has not demonstrated that trial counsel unreasonably read or interpreted the law by stipulating to the challeng

2019To succeed on his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, Eyre must show “(1) that counsel’s performance was so deficient as to fall below an objective standard of reasonableness and (2) that but for counsel’s performance there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different.” State v. Lane, 2019 UT App 86, ¶ 31 (quotation simplified).

2019See State v. Clark, 2014 UT App 56 , ¶¶ 54–55, 322 P.3d 761 (holding that the jury was properly instructed on 20180016-CA 8 2019 UT App 162 State v. Eyre accomplice liability for aggravated robbery when the instruction was “substantively identical to the accomplice liability statute” and contained the elements for the underlying crime of aggravated robbery, including the required mens rea); State v. Augustine, 2013 UT App 61, ¶ 10 , 298 P.3d 693 (same). ¶20 It is not deficient performance for counsel to agree to jury instructions that accurately and adequately inform the jury of the relevant l

2019See State v. Clark, 2014 UT App 56 , ¶¶ 54–55, 322 P.3d 761 (holding that the jury was properly instructed on 20180016-CA 8 2019 UT App 162 State v. Eyre accomplice liability for aggravated robbery when the instruction was “substantively identical to the accomplice liability statute” and contained the elements for the underlying crime of aggravated robbery, including the required mens rea); State v. Augustine, 2013 UT App 61, ¶ 10 , 298 P.3d 693 (same). ¶20 It is not deficient performance for counsel to agree to jury instructions that accurately and adequately inform the jury of the relevant l