State v. Oseguera-Lopez, 473 P.3d 196

On Christmas Eve, defendant Rogelio Oseguera-Lopez entered a department store carrying an unsheathed hunting knife, a folding knife (later displayed), a flashlight, and wire cutters, but no means to pay for merchandise.
He removed a duffel, placed the knives and flashlight inside, selected multiple handbags, and walked past the last point of sale toward an exit carrying four handbags without attempting to pay.
Store loss-prevention intervened; when confronted by a merchandise manager while returning some bags, Oseguera-Lopez displayed a closed folding knife in his palm, then walked quickly toward a different exit and was stopped by police inside the store.
He gave false identity information, was not arrested on the spot (escorted off property), and was later charged with aggravated robbery and providing false information to an officer.
At trial the defense rested; defense counsel requested jury instructions on retail theft and on the elements of attempt (as applied to robbery); the district court denied both requests. The jury convicted on aggravated robbery; defendant appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Denial of retail-theft jury instructions	State: No instruction on an uncharged, unincluded offense is required; existing instructions let defense argue its theory	Oseguera-Lopez: Jury should be instructed on retail theft and that retail theft cannot serve as the underlying theft for robbery (to show overcharge)	Denial affirmed; defendant not entitled to instruction on an uncharged/unincluded offense; retail theft can constitute “a theft” for robbery purposes
Denial of attempt instruction	State: Attempt statute defines a separate crime; defendant was charged with completed aggravated robbery, so the attempt instruction was inapplicable and, if error, harmless	Oseguera-Lopez: The word “attempt” in aggravated robbery requires the statutory attempt-elements instruction	Harmless-error analysis: even assuming instruction could apply, omission was harmless—no reasonable likelihood verdict would differ given the evidence
Denial of directed verdict (sufficiency)	State: Evidence sufficed that defendant used force or fear (displayed knife) in the course of committing a theft or in immediate flight	Oseguera-Lopez: Knife display occurred while returning bags and he did not flee; evidence insufficient to show force or fear in course of theft	Denial affirmed; viewing evidence in State's favor, jury reasonably inferred display of knife occurred during immediate flight and supported aggravated robbery conviction

Miller v. Utah Dep’t of Transp., 285 P.3d 1208 (2012 UT) (abuse-of-discretion standard for refusal to give jury instruction)
State v. Tennyson, 850 P.2d 461 (Utah Ct. App. 1993) (no entitlement to instruction on lesser, uncharged, unincluded offense)
United States v. Martinez-Candejas, 347 F.3d 853 (10th Cir. 2003) (use of the indefinite article signals a generic reference)
State v. Campbell, 274 P.3d 1021 (Utah Ct. App. 2012) (statutory references to "theft" can encompass retail-theft statutes)
State v. Harmon, 712 P.2d 291 (Utah 1986) (attempt instruction required when defendant is charged with attempted offense)
State v. Garcia, 424 P.3d 171 (Utah 2017) (instructional errors assessed under harmless-error analysis)
State v. Wall, 460 P.3d 1058 (Utah Ct. App. 2020) (jury’s reasonable inference sustains verdict even if an equally plausible innocent inference exists)