Utah Court of Appeals
Can an accomplice be convicted of robbery without making the threat? State v. Lomu Explained
Summary
Defendant entered a convenience store with two accomplices and stole beer while one accomplice threatened the store clerk. The court of appeals affirmed defendant’s robbery conviction, finding sufficient evidence that defendant knew of and took advantage of the threat.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
In State v. Lomu, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether sufficient evidence supported a robbery conviction when the defendant did not personally threaten the victim but knew of his accomplice’s threat and continued with the theft.
Background and Facts
Defendant Lomu entered a Maverik convenience store with two accomplices around 2:00 a.m. Lomu and one accomplice grabbed cases of beer while the third man held the door open. Surveillance video showed Lomu rushing out while the man at the door pointed at and spoke to the store clerk, audibly saying “shoot you.” Lomu was charged with aggravated robbery but convicted of the lesser crime of robbery with an in-concert enhancement.
Key Legal Issues
The court addressed three main issues: (1) whether sufficient evidence supported the robbery conviction when Lomu did not personally make the threat; (2) whether jury instructions on accomplice liability and in-concert activity were proper; and (3) whether prosecutorial statements during closing argument constituted misconduct.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court affirmed the conviction, finding sufficient evidence that Lomu knew of the threat and took advantage of the fear it created. The surveillance video showed Lomu was “well within earshot” when his accomplice began threatening the clerk. The jury could reasonably infer that Lomu intentionally took advantage of the threat when he continued rushing out with stolen goods. The court distinguished this from mere shoplifting, noting that robbery requires taking property “by means of force or fear.”
Practice Implications
This decision clarifies that accomplices need not personally use force or threats to be convicted of robbery—knowledge of and taking advantage of another’s threat suffices. The court emphasized that each defendant’s mental state determines their individual liability, not collective responsibility. Judge Voros’s concurrence suggested legislative amendment of the accomplice liability statute to better reflect case law requiring individualized mental state analysis.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. Lomu
Citation
2014 UT App 42
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20110713-CA
Date Decided
February 27, 2014
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
Sufficient evidence supported robbery conviction where defendant knew of accomplice’s threat to store clerk and continued to flee with stolen goods, taking advantage of the fear created by the threat.
Standard of Review
Sufficiency of evidence reviewed in light most favorable to the verdict; jury instructions reviewed for correctness; prosecutorial misconduct reviewed for plain error and ineffective assistance of counsel
Practice Tip
When challenging accomplice liability instructions, focus on whether the jury was properly informed that each defendant’s mental state determines their individual liability rather than collective responsibility.
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.