## Facts

- V.T., a minor, spent the night with two friends at the apartment of one of V.T.’s relatives.
- The next morning, after the relative briefly left and returned, the apartment door was open and the teens were gone; two firearms were missing.
- When the firearms were not returned, the relative reported that theft to police.
- Two days later, the relative discovered that her camcorder was missing and reported that theft as well.
- Police located the camcorder at a pawn shop.
- A videotape inside the camcorder showed footage of one of V.T.’s friends on the phone discussing plans to pawn the camcorder; V.T. appeared in the footage but neither spoke nor gestured during the call.
- The State charged V.T. in juvenile court with theft-related offenses, including theft of the camcorder; V.T. was prosecuted on an accomplice-liability theory as to that theft.
- The juvenile court did not sustain the firearm-theft counts but found V.T. guilty of the camcorder theft as an accomplice, reasoning largely from his continued association with the others and his presence during discussion about pawning the camcorder.
- V.T. appealed, arguing the evidence was insufficient to support accomplice liability for the camcorder theft.

## Issues

1. Whether evidence that V.T. was present with friends who discussed pawning a stolen camcorder, without any affirmative act of assistance or encouragement by V.T., is sufficient to prove accomplice liability for theft under Utah Code § 76-2-202.

## Decision

- The Utah Court of Appeals reversed the juvenile court’s adjudication finding V.T. guilty of theft of the camcorder under an accomplice theory.
- The court held that the State’s proof showed only V.T.’s presence and association, not the conduct required by Utah’s accomplice-liability statute.
- The reversal addressed the camcorder-theft adjudication challenged on appeal.

## Legal Principles

- Utah Code § 76-2-202 requires proof that the defendant, acting with the required mental state, solicited, requested, commanded, encouraged, or intentionally aided another person in committing the offense.
- Mere presence at or near criminal activity, even with knowledge that an offense is being discussed or committed, does not by itself establish accomplice liability.
- Continued friendship or association with a wrongdoer, without evidence of affirmative assistance or encouragement, is not enough to support a finding of accomplice liability.
- Silence or failure to intervene cannot substitute for proof of intentional aid or encouragement when the defendant has no legal duty to act.
- Presence may be considered along with other evidence (such as planning, acting as a lookout, directing conduct, sharing in proceeds, or other supportive acts), but presence alone cannot satisfy the statutory requirement.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals reversed V.T.’s camcorder-theft adjudication because the State’s evidence showed only that V.T. was with his friends and appeared on a videotape while one friend discussed pawning the camcorder, and it did not show that V.T. solicited, encouraged, or intentionally aided the theft as required for accomplice liability under Utah law.


State v. V.T., 5 P.3d 1234 (2000)