## Facts

- Around 2:00 a.m., two adult men (one related to M.B., a minor) stole items from a truck parked across the street from where their car was waiting.
- M.B. sat in the front passenger seat of the idling car while the adults committed the theft from the truck.
- A witness saw the adults return to the car; when the car’s interior light came on, the witness observed M.B. “just sitting” in the passenger seat.
- Police stopped the car shortly afterward and arrested all three occupants.
- All three were dressed in dark clothing.
- Officers found screwdrivers and a pair of gloves in the glove compartment, and another screwdriver wedged between the center console and the area next to M.B.’s seat; these items could have been used during the break-in.
- In the trunk, police found a car stereo with some of the truck’s wiring still attached.
- The State charged M.B. in juvenile court with vehicular burglary, theft, unlawful possession of burglary tools, and receiving stolen property.
- After a bench trial, the juvenile court found M.B. guilty on all counts, and M.B. appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence that M.B. remained seated in the passenger seat while adults stole from a truck, along with dark clothing and tools located in the car, was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that M.B. intentionally aided or encouraged the burglary and theft as an accomplice.
2. Whether M.B.’s proximity to screwdrivers, gloves, and the stolen stereo in the vehicle was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt unlawful possession of burglary tools and receiving stolen property, absent proof that M.B. knowingly exercised control over those items.

## Decision

- The Utah Court of Appeals reversed M.B.’s delinquency adjudications on all counts.
- The court held the State’s circumstantial evidence showed, at most, M.B.’s presence and association with the adults, which was not enough to prove intentional assistance required for accomplice liability.
- The court also concluded the record did not support a non-speculative finding that M.B. knowingly possessed burglary tools or knowingly received/controlled stolen property based solely on the items’ location in the car.
- The matter was remanded with instructions consistent with reversal (dismissal of the petitions).

## Legal Principles

- Accomplice liability requires proof that the defendant, acting with the required mental state, intentionally aided, encouraged, or attempted to aid another in committing the offense.
- Mere presence at the scene (or in a nearby vehicle), even when combined with suspicious circumstances such as association with offenders or dark clothing, does not by itself establish accomplice liability.
- A conviction cannot be based on speculation or on a chain of inferences that starts with presence and ends with participation without evidence of an affirmative act, agreement, or other reliable indicator of intent to assist.
- For possession-based offenses (such as possession of burglary tools and receiving stolen property), the State must prove knowing possession or control; proximity to items in a shared vehicle, without proof of knowing dominion or use, is not enough.

## Conclusion

Because the State proved only that M.B. was a passenger in an idling car while two adults committed a theft from a nearby truck, and relied on proximity to tools and stolen property without evidence of intentional assistance or knowing control, the Utah Court of Appeals reversed the juvenile court’s delinquency adjudications on all charges and ordered appropriate dismissal on remand.


State ex rel. M.B., 198 P.3d 1007 (2008)