D.B. v. State, 289 P.3d 459

D.B. was charged as a principal with theft and criminal trespass for entering a construction site and taking bolt cutters.
The juvenile court adjudicated D.B. delinquent as an accomplice on both counts.
The court of appeals affirmed, and the Utah Supreme Court granted certiorari to review notice and preservation issues.
Trial evidence included J.M.’s testimony showing D.B. found bolt cutters and instructed to throw them over the fence, supporting a theory of theft liability.
There was no trial evidence implicating D.B. as an accomplice to criminal trespass before the close of evidence; the accomplice theory for trespass arose in the juvenile court’s judgment.
The Court affirmed the theft adjudication but reversed the trespass adjudication and remanded for a new trial on that charge.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether notice for accomplice liability was constitutionally adequate	D.B. had notice via principal-and-accomplice theory; theft notice arose at trial; no notice for trespass before close of evidence.	D.B. lacked adequate notice of any accomplice theory for trespass until judgment; preservation and notice requirements were satisfied by other avenues.	Adequate notice missing for criminal trespass prior to evidence end; notice for theft valid; trespass adjudication reversed.
Was the preservation rule satisfied for the trespass claim	Notice arose at judgment, so no pre-judgment objection required; post-judgment motion not necessary.	D.B. failed to preserve the claim during trial or closing; waiver via strategic silence cannot be cured by post-judgment motion.	D.B. did not need to preserve for trespass due to notice arising in judgment; however, failure to preserve affected the trespass claim being reviewed on appeal.
Can the State raise accomplice liability for trespass for the first time in closing or on appeal	When evidence supports both principal and accomplice liability, closing may raise accomplice liability.	State may not raise new theory after evidence ends without notice affecting defense; closing rebuttal insufficient for notice.	First-time assertion in closing permissible only if prior notice existed; here it did not for trespass; dismissal on trespass reversed.

State v. Gonzales, 56 P.3d 969 (Utah App. 2002) (accomplice liability and principal liability severed but coextensive liability)
Stephens v. Borg, 59 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 1995) (Sixth Amendment notice via pretrial to closing arguments and evidence)
Commonwealth v. Harper, 660 A.2d 596 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1995) (Sixth Amendment notice via adequate notice and absence of misleading conduct)
State v. Mancine, 590 A.2d 1107 (N.J. 1991) (notice through pretrial discovery or defendant’s testimony; failure to object not prejudicial)
Commonwealth v. Smith, 482 A.2d 1124 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1984) (adequate notice when liability theory pursued repeatedly during trial)
Lopez v. State, 886 P.2d 1105 (Utah 1994) (liberty interest and preservation exceptions under due process)