State v. Bird, 286 P.3d 11

Bird was convicted of failure to respond to an officer’s signal to stop, a third‑degree felony under Utah law.
Officer Sweeney observed Bird in a blue Mustang with suspicious behavior, failed to stop at a stop sign, and a chase ensued.
Bird’s passenger fled; Bird eventually stopped the vehicle; Sweeney pursued and later Bird was stopped by another officer.
Bird was charged with one count of failure to respond to an officer’s signal to stop; the district court discussed jury instructions and the proposed elements instruction.
Bird objected that the jury should be instructed on the mental state required for conviction; the court denied the request and the trial proceeded with no explicit mental-state instruction.
The Utah Court of Appeals ultimately reversed Bird’s conviction for failure to respond due to the absence of a required mental-state instruction, analyzing statutory provisions and mens rea principles.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the mental state required for failure to respond to an officer’s signal to stop must be defined for the jury	Bird contends mental state needed for each element should be defined	State contends no mental-state instruction was required under the statute	Reversed for lack of mental-state instruction

State v. Cooper, 2011 UT App 234 (Utah Ct. App. 2011) (preservation and correctness standard for challenged jury instructions)
State v. Bujan, 2006 UT App 322 (Utah Ct. App. 2006) (adequate preservation when objection alerts trial court of error)
State v. Rothlisberger, 2004 UT App 226 (Utah Ct. App. 2004) (futile objections not required to preserve issues for appeal)
State v. Stringham, 957 P.2d 602 (Utah Ct. App. 1998) (necessity of jury instruction on mens rea for elements)
State v. Couch, 635 P.2d 89 (Utah 1981) (caution against trial court volunteers of common-usage terms)