State v. Lomu, 321 P.3d 235

In June 2010 Lomu and two others entered a Maverik convenience store; Lomu and one associate each took two cases of beer while a third man stood at the door.
Surveillance video showed Lomu rushing out with beer while the doorman pointed at and threatened the clerk (audibly saying "shoot you").
Lomu was charged with aggravated robbery but convicted of the lesser offense of robbery with an in-concert enhancement.
Lomu appealed, arguing (1) insufficient evidence of mens rea for robbery (i.e., that he knowingly used force or fear), (2) erroneous jury instructions regarding accomplice and in‑concert liability and mens rea, (3) prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument, and (4) cumulative error.
The trial record included video and eyewitness testimony that Lomu was in the store and within earshot when the doorman threatened the clerk.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence	State: some evidence and reasonable inferences support robbery (use of fear)	Lomu: he only shoplifted; unaware of associate's threat so lacked requisite mens rea	Affirmed — evidence allowed a reasonable jury to infer Lomu knowingly took advantage of the threat and thus committed robbery.
Jury instructions (in-concert/accomplice mens rea)	State: instructions correctly stated law including in-concert enhancement and accomplice statute	Lomu: instructions misstated law, could make mere presence sufficient for liability and confuse mens rea assessment	Affirmed — instructions were correct when read as a whole and did not prejudice Lomu; any error would have been harmless.
Prosecutorial misconduct (closing)	State: prosecutor’s remarks referenced in-concert and accomplice doctrines but did not compel an incorrect legal link	Lomu: prosecutor conflated in-concert and accomplice liability, misleading jury about mens rea	Affirmed — not plain error; any confusion cured by defense response, jury question, and instructions; error, if any, harmless beyond reasonable doubt.
Cumulative error	State: because no prejudicial errors, cumulative error claim fails	Lomu: combined errors deprived him of a fair trial	Affirmed — no cumulative prejudice; verdict stands.

State v. Shumway, 63 P.3d 94 (Utah 2002) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
State v. Briggs, 197 P.3d 628 (Utah 2008) (accomplice liability and required intent principles)
State v. Augustine, 298 P.3d 693 (Utah Ct. App. 2013) (adequacy of accomplice-liability instruction when paired with an elements instruction)
State v. Dunn, 850 P.2d 1201 (Utah 1993) (cumulative-error standard)
State v. Troy, 688 P.2d 483 (Utah 1984) (assessing prejudice from prosecutorial misconduct in light of the whole case)