accurate instruction in Utah

2015See State v. Maestas, 2012 UT 46, ¶ 148 , 299 P.3d 892 (explaining that we review jury instructions "in their entirety and will affirm when the instructions taken as a whole fairly instruct the jury on the law applicable to the case"); State v. Roberts, 711 P.2d 235, 239 (Utah 1985) (stating "'the general rule" that "an accurate instruction ' upon the basic elements of an offense is essential"). .

2015It does so by reciting the above definitions of the operative terms of the statute—receive, attempt, flee, and evade—and by conceding that these terms accordingly conveyed the essential notion of the knowledge and intent elements of the 1 See State v. Maestas, 2012 UT 46, ¶ 148 , 299 P.3d 892 (explaining that we review jury instructions “in their entirety and will affirm when the instructions taken as a whole fairly instruct the jury on the law applicable to the case”); State v. Roberts, 711 P.2d 235, 239 (Utah 1985) (stating “the general rule” that “an accurate instruction upon the basic elem

2002"The jury must be instructed with respect to all the legal elements that it must find to convict of the crime charged, and the absence of such an instruction is reversible error as a matter of law." State v. Jones, 823 P.2d 1059, 1061 (Utah 1991). "'The general rule is that an accurate instruction upon the basic elements of an offense is essential.

1998This court has consistently held that “[failure to give an elements instruction for a crime satisfies the manifest injustice standard under Rule 19(c) and constitutes reversible error as a matter of law.” Gibson, 908 P.2d at 354 ; see also State v. Souza, 846 P.2d 1313, 1320 (Utah Ct.App.1993) (stating “because ‘ “[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” (quoting State v. Jones, 823 P.2d 1059, 1061 (Utah 1991) (quoting State v. Rober

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

1998“Further, because ‘ “[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.” State v. Souza, 846 P.2d 1313, 1320 (Utah Ct.App.1993) (alteration in original) (citations omitted).

2012Under our law, parties are not required to make futile objections in order to preserve a future claim."). 113 Having determined that Bird preserved the lack of a mental state instruction as an issue for appeal, we turn to the question of whether the district court erred when it failed to give such an instruction. "[The general rule is that an accurate instruction upon the basic elements of an offense is essential, [and] failure to provide such an instruction is reversible error that can never be considered harmless." State v. Stringham, 957 P.2d 602, 608 (Utah Ct.App.1998) (internal quotation

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

2015See State v. Maestas, 2012 UT 46, ¶ 148 , 299 P.3d 892 (explaining that we review jury instructions "in their entirety and will affirm when the instructions taken as a whole fairly instruct the jury on the law applicable to the case"); State v. Roberts, 711 P.2d 235, 239 (Utah 1985) (stating "'the general rule" that "an accurate instruction ' upon the basic elements of an offense is essential"). .

2015See State v. Maestas, 2012 UT 46, ¶ 148 , 299 P.3d 892 (explaining that we review jury instructions "in their entirety and will affirm when the instructions taken as a whole fairly instruct the jury on the law applicable to the case"); State v. Roberts, 711 P.2d 235, 239 (Utah 1985) (stating "'the general rule" that "an accurate instruction ' upon the basic elements of an offense is essential"). .

2022See State v. Vigil, 2019 UT App 131, ¶ 11 , 448 P.3d 738 (“Failure to object to jury instructions that correctly state the law is not deficient performance.” (cleaned up)); see also State v. Lopez, 2019 UT App 11, ¶ 23 , 438 P.3d 950 (“To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, [a] defendant must show: (1) that counsel’s performance was objectively deficient, and (2) a reasonable probability exists that but for the deficient conduct [the] defendant would have obtained a more favorable outcome at trial. . . .

2022See State v. Vigil, 2019 UT App 131, ¶ 11 , 448 P.3d 738 (“Failure to object to jury instructions that correctly state the law is not deficient performance.” (cleaned up)); see also State v. Lopez, 2019 UT App 11, ¶ 23 , 438 P.3d 950 (“To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, [a] defendant must show: (1) that counsel’s performance was objectively deficient, and (2) a reasonable probability exists that but for the deficient conduct [the] defendant would have obtained a more favorable outcome at trial. . . .

2022See State v. Holm, 2020 UT App 96, ¶ 31 , 467 P.3d 934 (“Although defendants are entitled to an accurate instruction upon the basic elements of an offense, . . . district courts need not give jury instructions regarding elements unnecessary for the conviction of the charged crime.” (cleaned up)); accord State v. Pederson, 2005 UT App 98, ¶ 4 , 110 P.3d 164 . ¶36 Given what we have just explained—that Instruction No. 30 was correct—Counsel’s approval of the instruction was not objectively unreasonable.

2022See State v. Holm, 2020 UT App 96, ¶ 31 , 467 P.3d 934 (“Although defendants are entitled to an accurate instruction upon the basic elements of an offense, . . . district courts need not give jury instructions regarding elements unnecessary for the conviction of the charged crime.” (cleaned up)); accord State v. Pederson, 2005 UT App 98, ¶ 4 , 110 P.3d 164 . ¶36 Given what we have just explained—that Instruction No. 30 was correct—Counsel’s approval of the instruction was not objectively unreasonable.

2022See State v. Vigil, 2019 UT App 131, ¶ 11 , 448 P.3d 738 (“Failure to object to jury instructions that correctly state the law is not deficient performance.” (cleaned up)); see also State v. Lopez, 2019 UT App 11, ¶ 23 , 438 P.3d 950 (“To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, [a] defendant must show: (1) that counsel’s performance was objectively deficient, and (2) a reasonable probability exists that but for the deficient conduct [the] defendant would have obtained a more favorable outcome at trial. . . .

2022See State v. Vigil, 2019 UT App 131, ¶ 11 , 448 P.3d 738 (“Failure to object to jury instructions that correctly state the law is not deficient performance.” (cleaned up)); see also State v. Lopez, 2019 UT App 11, ¶ 23 , 438 P.3d 950 (“To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, [a] defendant must show: (1) that counsel’s performance was objectively deficient, and (2) a reasonable probability exists that but for the deficient conduct [the] defendant would have obtained a more favorable outcome at trial. . . .

2022See State v. Holm, 2020 UT App 96, ¶ 31 , 467 P.3d 934 (“Although defendants are entitled to an accurate instruction upon the basic elements of an offense, . . . district courts need not give jury instructions regarding elements unnecessary for the conviction of the charged crime.” (cleaned up)); accord State v. Pederson, 2005 UT App 98, ¶ 4 , 110 P.3d 164 . ¶36 Given what we have just explained—that Instruction No. 30 was correct—Counsel’s approval of the instruction was not objectively unreasonable.

2022See State v. Holm, 2020 UT App 96, ¶ 31 , 467 P.3d 934 (“Although defendants are entitled to an accurate instruction upon the basic elements of an offense, . . . district courts need not give jury instructions regarding elements unnecessary for the conviction of the charged crime.” (cleaned up)); accord State v. Pederson, 2005 UT App 98, ¶ 4 , 110 P.3d 164 . ¶36 Given what we have just explained—that Instruction No. 30 was correct—Counsel’s approval of the instruction was not objectively unreasonable.

2016We conclude that Trial Counsel performed deficiently in this regard. 122 We next consider whether the error caused prejudice, i.e., whether "a reasonable. probability exists that, but for counsel's error, the result would have been different." Lee, 2014 UT App 4, ¶ 13 , 318 P.3d 1164 {citation and internal quotation marks omitted); accord Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 . 123 The Utah Supreme Court has recognized that "an accurate instruction upon the basic elements of an offense is essential.

2016We conclude that Trial Counsel performed deficiently in this regard. 122 We next consider whether the error caused prejudice, i.e., whether "a reasonable. probability exists that, but for counsel's error, the result would have been different." Lee, 2014 UT App 4, ¶ 13 , 318 P.3d 1164 {citation and internal quotation marks omitted); accord Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 . 123 The Utah Supreme Court has recognized that "an accurate instruction upon the basic elements of an offense is essential.

2015"To determine if jury instructions correctly state the law, we 'look at the jury instructions in their entirety and will affirm when the instructions taken as a whole fairly instruct the jury on the law applicable to the case."" State v. Painter, 2014 UT App 272, ¶ 6 , 339 P.3d 107 (quoting State v. Maestas, 2012 UT 46, ¶148 , 299 P.3d 892 ); cf. State v. Stringham, 2001 UT App 13, ¶ 17 , 17 P.3d 1153 ("Failure to give requested jury instructions constitutes reversible error only if their omission tends to mislead the jury to the prejudice of the complaining party or insufficiently or erroneou

2015State v. James, 819 P.2d 781, 799 (Utah 1991). .

2015It does so by reciting the above definitions of the operative terms of the statute—receive, attempt, flee, and evade—and by conceding that these terms accordingly conveyed the essential notion of the knowledge and intent elements of the 1 See State v. Maestas, 2012 UT 46, ¶ 148 , 299 P.3d 892 (explaining that we review jury instructions “in their entirety and will affirm when the instructions taken as a whole fairly instruct the jury on the law applicable to the case”); State v. Roberts, 711 P.2d 235, 239 (Utah 1985) (stating “the general rule” that “an accurate instruction upon the basic elem

2005“An instruction that generally sets out the required mens rea for the elements of an offense is permissible.” Id.; see also American Fork v. Carr, 970 P.2d 717, 720 (Utah Ct.App.1998) (‘When instructing the jury on the elements of the offense, the trial court must specifically instruct the jury regarding the culpable mental state required to commit the crime.” (quotations and citation omitted)).

2005Moreover, “[flailure to give requested jury instructions constitutes reversible error only if their omission tends to mislead the jury to the prejudice of the complaining party or insufficiently or erroneously advises the jury on the law.” Id. (quotations and citation omitted). ¶4 “[T]he general rule is that an accurate instruction upon the basic elements of an offense is essential....” State v. Pearson, 1999 UT App 220,¶ 12 , 985 P.2d 919 (quotations and citation omitted); see also Utah Code Ann. § 76-1-501 (1) (2003) (“A defendant in a criminal proceeding is presumed to be innocent until eac

2005Moreover, “[flailure to give requested jury instructions constitutes reversible error only if their omission tends to mislead the jury to the prejudice of the complaining party or insufficiently or erroneously advises the jury on the law.” Id. (quotations and citation omitted). ¶4 “[T]he general rule is that an accurate instruction upon the basic elements of an offense is essential....” State v. Pearson, 1999 UT App 220,¶ 12 , 985 P.2d 919 (quotations and citation omitted); see also Utah Code Ann. § 76-1-501 (1) (2003) (“A defendant in a criminal proceeding is presumed to be innocent until eac

1998In order to convict defendant of communications fraud, the State was required to prove every element of section 76-10-1801, including the mens rea requirement embodied in subsection (7) of the statute. 17 See generally State v. Tebbs, 786 P.2d 775, 778 (Utah Ct.App.1990).