State Ex Rel. Vt

Rule of Law:

Mere presence at the scene of a crime, even if continuous, is insufficient to establish accomplice liability. To be liable as an accomplice, a defendant must engage in some affirmative act or speech that solicits, requests, commands, encourages, or intentionally aids in the commission of the offense.

Facts:

• V.T. and two friends, 'Moose' and Joey, spent the night at the apartment of a relative.
• The next morning, the relative left the apartment for approximately fifteen minutes, leaving the three boys there.
• Upon her return, the relative discovered the boys were gone, her apartment door was open, and two of her guns were missing.
• She found the boys nearby and confronted them about the guns, but they did not return them.
• Two days later, the relative realized her camcorder was also missing from the apartment and reported it to the police.
• The police located the camcorder at a pawn shop, where it had been pawned on the same day it was stolen.
• A videotape found inside the camcorder contained footage of V.T., Moose, and Joey.
• The footage showed Moose, in V.T.'s presence, on the phone discussing pawning the stolen camcorder; V.T. remained silent and did not gesture during this conversation.

Procedural Posture:

• The State charged V.T. in juvenile court with three counts of theft under an accomplice theory, and one count of giving false information to a peace officer.
• After hearings, the juvenile court adjudicated V.T. guilty of being an accomplice to the theft of the camcorder and of giving false information.
• V.T. (appellant) appealed the juvenile court's adjudication regarding the camcorder theft to the Court of Appeals of Utah, arguing the evidence was insufficient.
• The State of Utah (appellee) appeared to defend the juvenile court's adjudication.