State v. Eyre, 500 P.3d 776

Background

On Aug. 28, 2016, Rakes allegedly flashed a pistol and threatened to steal a parked Dodge Challenger; Simon (the vehicle owner) fatally shot Rakes during the confrontation. Eyre fled the scene.
Eyre was charged as an accomplice to aggravated robbery; the State argued Eyre aided the theft by pretending to look for jumper cables and by allegedly brandishing a gun.
At trial the jury received three accomplice-liability instructions, including Instruction No. 40; defense counsel stipulated to the instructions. The jury convicted Eyre and he was sentenced to 10 years to life.
Eyre appealed, arguing Instruction No. 40 misstated the mens rea for accomplice liability and that trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting; the court of appeals affirmed. Eyre petitioned for certiorari.
The Utah Supreme Court reviewed whether Instruction No. 40 was erroneous as to the dual mens rea required for accomplice liability and whether counsel’s failure to object was deficient and prejudicial under Strickland.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Eyre)	Held
Did Instruction No. 40 properly convey the dual mens rea required for accomplice liability?	Instruction No. 40, read with Instructions Nos. 39 and 41, adequately informed the jury of mens rea.	Instruction No. 40 omitted any clear mens rea requirement for the underlying offense, allowing conviction on a lesser mental state.	Instruction No. 40 was erroneous: it failed to require the mens rea for the underlying robbery and thus could permit conviction on a lesser mental state; other instructions did not cure the error.
Was trial counsel’s failure to object to Instruction No. 40 deficient performance under Strickland?	Counsel’s stipulation was reasonable or strategic; failure to object did not necessarily fall below objective standards.	Given the centrality of intent to Eyre’s defense and settled precedent, any reasonable attorney would have objected.	Counsel’s failure to object was deficient: no plausible reasonable strategy justified acquiescing to the misstated instruction.
Did the deficient performance prejudice Eyre (Strickland prejudice)?	The totality of evidence supported conviction; no reasonable probability of different outcome.	Conflicting factual scenarios about Eyre’s intent created a reasonable probability that at least one juror convicted based on a theory that would not suffice under correct instructions.	Prejudice established: reasonable probability that at least one juror relied on a factual finding (lesser mens rea) that would not have supported conviction had the jury been properly instructed. Conviction vacated and remanded for a new trial.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Jeffs, 243 P.3d 1250 (Utah 2010) (accomplice-liability instruction must require jurors to find both the underlying-offense mens rea and intent to aid)
State v. Grunwald, 478 P.3d 1 (Utah 2020) (instruction permitting conviction on recklessness where underlying offense required a higher mens rea is erroneous; failure to object can be deficient)
State v. Barela, 349 P.3d 676 (Utah 2015) (mens rea language must clearly apply to all elements that require a culpable mental state)
State v. Bird, 345 P.3d 1141 (Utah 2015) (failure to instruct jury on required mens rea is reversible error)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Francis v. Franklin, 471 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1985) (conflicting instructions do not cure an offending instruction)