Can an accomplice be convicted of aggravated robbery without prior knowledge of a weapon threat? State v. Lomu Explained

In State v. Lomu, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed when an accomplice can be convicted of aggravated robbery and the proper admission of similar acts evidence under Rule 404(b).

Background and Facts

Defendant Pailate Lomu and an accomplice entered a Maverik convenience store after 1:00 a.m. to purchase beer. When the clerk refused the sale due to the late hour, Lomu’s accomplice stood by the door, raised his shirt, placed his hand on his hip, and told the clerk he had a gun. Lomu then grabbed the beer and fled without paying. The incident was captured on surveillance cameras, and Lomu was charged with aggravated robbery under an accomplice theory.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed two primary issues: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support Lomu’s conviction for aggravated robbery under an accomplice theory, and (2) whether the trial court properly admitted evidence of a subsequent similar beer robbery under Rule 404(b) to show intent.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

Regarding sufficiency of evidence, the court held that even if Lomu had no prior knowledge of the gun threat, sufficient evidence supported his conviction because he continued to participate in the theft after the threat was made. The court explained that when a defendant is “put on notice that a co-perpetrator has acted in a way that elevates a simple theft to aggravated robbery” and chooses to “actively participate[] and aid[]” rather than fleeing, a jury may properly infer the requisite mental state.

For the Rule 404(b) evidence, the court applied the doctrine of chances analysis from State v. Verde, examining materiality, similarity, independence, and frequency. The court found the subsequent robbery was substantially similar—both occurred at Maverik stores in West Valley City in the early morning hours, involved the same method of operation, and included gun threats. This evidence was properly admitted to show Lomu’s intent was robbery rather than mere shoplifting.

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies that accomplice liability for aggravated robbery can attach even without prior knowledge of a weapon threat, provided the accomplice continues participating after becoming aware of the threat. For Rule 404(b) challenges, practitioners should focus on the Verde factors rather than the traditional Shickles analysis when evidence involves the doctrine of chances theory.