State v. Binkerd, 310 P.3d 755

Defendant Joshua Binkerd was affiliated with a Salt Lake City gang in 2008 as an original gangster who directed others; Alvey acted as his second-in-command.
The victim periodically associated with the gang, helped drive members to robberies, used drugs with them, and was labeled their snitch, leading Defendant to authorize a “green light” on her.
Defendant told fellow gang members there was a “green light” and an “SOS” on the victim, and allegedly said there was only one way to handle a snitch: kill her.
A few days before Christmas, Alvey confronted the victim; after a near-incident, Defendant told Alvey not to kill her there and not to return to the apartment.
Two days later, Alvey took the victim to a canyon, where he shot her four times after being directed by Defendant; the victim died a hospital visit later.
Alvey pled guilty to aggravated murder in exchange for testifying; Defendant was tried separately and convicted by a jury as an accomplice to manslaughter.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Can an accomplice be convicted of manslaughter when the principal offense was murder	Binkerd argues accomplice liability cannot attach to a different offense (manslaughter) than the principal murder	Binkerd contends accomplice liability requires the same mens rea as the principal offense	Yes; an accomplice can be convicted of manslaughter regardless of the principal offense
Was the negligent homicide instruction properly available and did it open the door to manslaughter	State contends the Court could provide negligent homicide as a lesser included offense	Defense sought negligent homicide and argued it should not trigger manslaughter	The court properly included negligent homicide and, by opening the door, permitted manslaughter instruction under accomplice theory
Was trial counsel ineffective for requesting negligent homicide instruction		Counsel's strategy was reasonable to offer a lesser offense option	Not ineffective; strategy reasonable and supports alternative theories
Was the dangerous weapon enhancement misinterpreted at sentencing harmless		Court misapplied enhancement but record shows same sentence would have resulted	Harmless error; remand unnecessary

State v. Crick, 675 P.2d 527 (Utah 1983) (accomplice liability hinges on intent to commit underlying offense; degree determined by own mental state)
State v. Briggs, 2008 UT 75 (Utah) (accomplice need not share the principal’s intent; must intend that an offense be committed)
State v. Jeffs, 2010 UT 49 (Utah) (accomplice liability adheres to the mens rea of the offense; aiding requires intent)
State v. Alvarez, 872 P.2d 450 (Utah 1994) (party liability does not require same mental state as principal)
State v. Dunn, 850 P.2d 1201 (Utah 1993) (plain error framework for unpreserved issues)
State v. Standiford, 769 P.2d 254 (Utah 1988) (difference between offenses characterized by degree of risk ignored by defendant)
State v. Tennyson, 850 P.2d 461 (Utah Ct. App. 1993) (lesser-included offense analysis context)
State v. Baker, 671 P.2d 152 (Utah 1983) (tests for when a lesser included offense instruction is permissible)
State v. Howell, 649 P.2d 91 (Utah 1982) (court may give lesser included offense instruction over objection if no prejudice)