State v. Bird
345 P.3d 1141
Utah2015Background
- On Oct. 12, 2009, Officer Sweeny followed a Ford Mustang driven by Dustin Bird after observing suspicious driving; the officer activated lights but the Mustang did not immediately stop and the passenger fled when the car rolled to a stop.
- A second officer later activated lights at which point Bird stopped and was arrested; Bird was charged with third-degree felony failure to respond to an officer's signal to stop under Utah Code § 41-6a-210(1)(a).
- At trial the court gave an elements instruction tracking the statute but refused defense requests to identify or define the mental state (mens rea) for the statutory elements; prosecution argued jurors need not inquire into defendant’s mental state.
- The jury convicted Bird; on appeal the Utah Court of Appeals reversed because the trial court failed to instruct on the mens rea implied by the statutory terms “receive” and “attempt.”
- The Utah Supreme Court granted certiorari; it affirmed the court of appeals, holding the trial court erred by not instructing the jury as to the required mens rea and providing guidance for remand: the State must prove Bird knowingly received the signal and intended to flee or elude, and the trial court should define "knowing" and "intentional."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Bird) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bird preserved objection to missing mens rea instruction | Bird did not preserve because his trial request sought mens rea words but appellate argument about defining "receive" and "attempt" differed | Bird argued he contemporaneously objected to lack of any mens rea instruction and preserved the issue | Preserved: Bird timely and specifically objected; issue preserved for appeal |
| Whether trial court erred by failing to instruct jury on mens rea for § 41-6a-210(1)(a) | No; terms like "receive" and "attempt" are common words whose ordinary meaning suffices and jury need not be told mens rea separately | Yes; statutory terms carry mens rea implications and jury must be instructed on the required mental states (knowingly for receipt; intentional for attempt to flee) | Error: trial court should have instructed on mens rea for each element; reversible error |
| Level of mens rea required for "receive a signal" element | Plain meaning sufficient; no special legal definition needed | "Receive" requires knowledge — jury should be told a knowing mental state is required | Held: jury should be instructed that defendant must have knowingly received the signal |
| Level of mens rea required for "attempt to flee or elude" element | "Attempt" in common usage is clear; no additional instruction required | "Attempt to flee or elude" requires an intentional purpose to escape — jury must be instructed on intentional mens rea | Held: attempt-to-flee element requires intention; jury must be instructed that defendant intended to flee or elude |
Key Cases Cited
- Collins v. Sandy City Bd. of Adjustment, 52 P.3d 1267 (Utah 2002) (standard of review on certiorari: review court of appeals for correctness; may affirm on any ground in record)
- State v. Stringham, 957 P.2d 602 (Utah Ct. App. 1998) (trial court must instruct on mens rea when statute's language implies it)
- State v. Pearson, 985 P.2d 919 (Utah Ct. App. 1999) (partial mens rea instruction can leave impression of strict liability for other elements)
- State v. Potter, 627 P.2d 75 (Utah 1981) (trial court must distinguish general and specific intent in instructions)
- State v. Jeffs, 243 P.3d 1250 (Utah 2010) (mens rea is a legal term of art that should be explained to a jury)
- State v. Hutchings, 285 P.3d 1183 (Utah 2012) (where statute does not specify culpable mental state, intent, knowledge, or recklessness suffice)