## Facts

- On February 4, 1980, Wilford Seekford rented an automobile in Utah County, Utah.
- Seekford immediately left with friends and drove through Utah (including stops in Price and Cleveland) and arrived in Las Vegas, Nevada, on February 5, 1980.
- The group continued traveling to Arizona and Texas.
- During the trip, Seekford and Cary Revoir discussed the rented car several times; Revoir said they should take it back to avoid trouble, and Seekford replied that he would “handle it.”
- After the group separated, Seekford kept the car.
- A few days later, when the Revoirs reached Seekford by telephone and asked whether he would return the car, Seekford again stated he would “handle it.”
- Seekford also told Michelle Revoir that he had “some friends who could make him some license plates.”
- Several months later, the vehicle was located and recovered.
- Utah charged Seekford with theft, a second-degree felony, under Utah’s consolidated theft statute; he was convicted after a bench trial.
- Seekford appealed, challenging territorial jurisdiction, admission of a telex communication, and the use of the general theft charge.

## Issues

1. Did Utah have territorial jurisdiction under Utah Code Ann. § 76-1-201 to prosecute Seekford for theft when the car was rented in Utah but much of the later retention and travel occurred outside Utah, if the factfinder could infer that the intent to deprive arose in Utah?
2. Was it reversible error to admit a telex communication related to identifying the vehicle?
3. Was it improper to charge Seekford under Utah’s consolidated general theft statute rather than a more specific theft-related offense?

## Decision

- The Utah Supreme Court affirmed Seekford’s conviction.
- Utah had territorial jurisdiction because the offense was committed “partly within” Utah: the trial court could reasonably infer that Seekford formed the intent to deprive the owner in Utah at or near the time he rented the car, and intent to deprive is an element of theft.
- Even if admitting the telex communication was error, it was not prejudicial because the identity of the vehicle was not genuinely disputed and other evidence established the car’s identification.
- Charging theft under Utah’s consolidated theft statute was proper; the State could charge theft generally and prove it by any method of committing theft recognized by the statute.

## Legal Principles

- Utah may prosecute an offense committed “wholly or partly within the state.” Utah Code Ann. § 76-1-201.
- An offense is committed “partly within” Utah if either (a) conduct that is an element of the offense, or (b) a result that is an element of the offense, occurs in Utah. Utah Code Ann. § 76-1-201(2).
- For theft, the intent to deprive is an element; intent may be inferred from circumstantial evidence, including later conduct and statements, and may be inferred to have existed when the defendant obtained the property.
- A conviction will not be reversed for evidentiary error absent a showing of prejudice; admission of evidence on an uncontested or adequately proven point is harmless.
- Under a consolidated theft statute, the State may charge theft in general terms and sustain the charge with proof that the defendant committed theft in any statutorily defined manner, so long as the elements are proved.

## Conclusion

The Utah Supreme Court held that Utah courts had territorial jurisdiction to try Seekford for theft because the trial judge could infer that Seekford formed the intent to deprive the owner in Utah when he rented the vehicle, and it rejected claims of reversible error based on admission of a telex and the State’s use of Utah’s consolidated general theft statute, affirming the bench-trial conviction.


State v. Seekford, 638 P.2d 525 (1981)