Must Utah juries be unanimous on principal versus accomplice liability? State v. Fitzwater Explained

In State v. Fitzwater, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether juries must unanimously agree on whether a defendant committed murder as a principal or accomplice, and examined several ineffective assistance of counsel claims involving strategic trial decisions.

Background and Facts

Cory Fitzwater and Dalton Aiken went to a pond area after drinking and smoking marijuana, where they encountered a sleeping homeless man and shot him with Fitzwater’s Sig Sauer handgun. Both men were arrested and charged with murder. While in jail, Fitzwater attempted to bribe two fellow inmates to provide false testimony implicating Aiken as the sole shooter. The cases were severed, and Aiken was tried first and convicted of murder. For Fitzwater’s trial, defense counsel stipulated to the admission of Aiken’s prior statements to police and his conviction, using this evidence to argue that Aiken was the actual shooter.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed three main issues: (1) whether jury unanimity instructions were required for principal versus accomplice liability theories, (2) whether counsel’s stipulation to co-defendant’s statements constituted ineffective assistance, and (3) whether counsel should have moved to sever the witness tampering charges from the murder charges.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

Following State v. Hummel, the court held that unanimity is not required for different theories of committing the same offense. Principal and accomplice liability represent different “means” of causing death, not separate crimes requiring unanimity. The court rejected Fitzwater’s ineffective assistance claims, finding counsel’s stipulation was a reasonable strategic decision given the strong circumstantial evidence already linking Fitzwater to the crime scene and weapon. The witness tampering charges were properly joined because they were precipitated by the murder charge and showed consciousness of guilt.

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies that Utah courts distinguish between unanimity on separate crimes versus unanimity on theories or means of committing a single offense. Defense attorneys should carefully consider whether stipulating to co-defendant statements might serve strategic purposes, such as highlighting inconsistencies or advancing alternative theories. Courts will defer to strategic decisions that appear reasonable at the time they were made, even if they prove unsuccessful. When challenging joinder of charges, practitioners must show the evidence would be inadmissible at separate trials and that probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.