State v. Eyre, 452 P.3d 1197

In Aug. 2016 three men in a PT Cruiser (Passenger, Driver, Eyre) confronted a couple in a Dodge Challenger; Passenger produced a pistol and announced a robbery; Passenger was later shot and died; Eyre fled the scene.
Police arrested Boyfriend (shooter) and recovered drug paraphernalia in the Challenger and a pistol magazine in the PT Cruiser; no gun was recovered from Eyre.
Eyre was charged with aggravated robbery under an accomplice-liability theory and his custodial police interview (Exhibit 11) was admitted at trial.
The parties stipulated to blanket admission of exhibits; Trial Counsel assumed Exhibit 11 would not be sent to the jury room but it was inadvertently made available on a computer during deliberations.
Trial Counsel moved for a mistrial after learning the jury viewed Exhibit 11; the district court found the viewing improper but harmless and denied a new trial; Eyre appeals arguing ineffective assistance for (1) failing to object to a jury instruction on accomplice mens rea and (2) failing to keep Exhibit 11 out of the jury room (and alternatively that a mistrial was required).
The Court of Appeals affirmed: the jury instructions taken as a whole adequately instructed mens rea for accomplice liability, and Trial Counsel was not ineffective regarding Exhibit 11 (the error was invited and an objection would likely have been futile given existing law).

Issue	Eyre's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether Trial Counsel was ineffective for failing to object to a jury instruction that allegedly misstated accomplice mens rea	Instruction 40 omitted explicit requirement that Eyre intended the aggravated robbery; counsel should have objected	Other instructions (35, 39, 41) together made the required mens rea clear; counsel’s conduct was reasonable	Not ineffective — instructions read as a whole adequately explained the mens rea for accomplice liability
Whether the jury’s viewing of Eyre’s police interview during deliberations required a mistrial or counsel was ineffective for not preventing it	Jury viewing of Exhibit 11 during deliberations could have improperly influenced verdict; counsel should have prevented it or obtained a mistrial	Trial Counsel stipulated to blanket admission and participated in sending exhibits back (invited the error); objection would likely have been futile because courts permit jury access to defendant’s statements	No mistrial; error invited by defense counsel; counsel not ineffective because objection would have been futile and law was unfavorable to exclusion

State v. Jeffs, 243 P.3d 1250 (Utah 2010) (accomplice liability requires the defendant possess the mens rea for the underlying offense)
State v. Clark, 322 P.3d 761 (Utah Ct. App. 2014) (accomplice instruction adequate when it mirrors statutory language and includes underlying offense elements)
State v. Augustine, 298 P.3d 693 (Utah Ct. App. 2013) (same principle as Clark regarding accomplice instructions)
State v. Carter, 888 P.2d 629 (Utah 1994) (transcripts of prior testimony should not be sent to jury during deliberations)
State v. Cruz, 387 P.3d 618 (Utah Ct. App. 2016) (recorded testimonial interviews of certain witnesses should not go to jury during deliberations)
State v. Barney, 681 P.2d 1230 (Utah 1984) (errors invited by defendant or counsel cannot be asserted on appeal)
State v. Malaga, 132 P.3d 703 (Utah Ct. App. 2006) (counsel not ineffective for failing to make futile objections)
State v. Coombs, 438 P.3d 967 (Utah Ct. App. 2019) (ineffective assistance of counsel claims reviewed as questions of law)