Utah Court of Appeals
Can an accomplice be convicted of a different crime than the principal actor? State v. Binkerd Explained
Summary
Defendant Binkerd was convicted of manslaughter based on accomplice liability for instructing a gang member to kill a suspected informant. The gang member shot and killed the victim, pleading guilty to aggravated murder. Binkerd challenged his manslaughter conviction, arguing he could not be convicted as an accomplice to a crime different from the principal’s offense.
Analysis
Background and Facts
Joshua Binkerd was an “original gangster” who ordered the killing of a suspected informant through his subordinate Chris Alvey. After placing a “green light” on the victim and instructing Alvey to take her to a canyon and “don’t bring her back,” Alvey shot and killed the victim. Alvey pleaded guilty to aggravated murder, while Binkerd was charged under an accomplice liability theory.
Key Legal Issues
The central question was whether Binkerd could be convicted of manslaughter as an accomplice when the principal actor (Alvey) committed aggravated murder. Binkerd argued that accomplice liability requires conviction for the same offense as the principal. The court also addressed whether defense counsel was ineffective for requesting a negligent homicide instruction that opened the door to a manslaughter instruction.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Utah’s accomplice liability statute allows conviction of different offenses for the accomplice and principal. Under State v. Crick and State v. Jeffs, “a defendant can be criminally responsible for an act committed by another, but the degree of his responsibility is determined by his own mental state.” The evidence supported that Binkerd acted recklessly—aware of but consciously disregarding a substantial risk that his actions would lead to the victim’s death.
Practice Implications
This decision clarifies that accomplices need not share the principal’s mens rea. Defense counsel should carefully consider mental state evidence when evaluating potential lesser included offense instructions. While requesting such instructions can provide favorable alternatives to more serious charges, it may also open the door to intermediate offenses. The court’s analysis demonstrates that accomplice liability extends across the spectrum of criminal homicide offenses based on the individual defendant’s culpability.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. Binkerd
Citation
2013 UT App 216
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20100978-CA
Date Decided
September 6, 2013
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
A defendant can be convicted as an accomplice to manslaughter even though the principal actor committed aggravated murder, because accomplice liability requires only that the accomplice act with the mental state required for the offense of which he is convicted.
Standard of Review
Statutory interpretations reviewed for correctness, granting no deference to the trial court. Ineffective assistance of counsel claims present questions of law. Plain error requires showing (i) an error exists; (ii) the error should have been obvious to the trial court; and (iii) the error is harmful.
Practice Tip
When defending accomplice liability cases, carefully analyze whether your client’s mental state supports the charged offense—accomplices can be convicted of lesser included offenses even when the principal commits a more serious crime.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.