What constitutes a substantial step under Utah's attempt statute? State v. Smith Explained

The Utah Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Smith provides important clarification on what constitutes a substantial step under Utah’s attempt statute, rejecting a mechanical counting approach in favor of an intent-focused analysis.

Background and Facts

Shane Craig Smith engaged in an online conversation with “Emily,” who he believed was a thirteen-year-old girl but was actually an undercover police officer conducting a sting operation. During their three-hour conversation, Smith arranged to meet Emily at a gas station for sexual activity in exchange for driving her to California. Smith drove to the location, texted Emily his arrival, flashed his headlights as a signal, and directed her to get in his car. He was arrested at the scene and charged with attempted child kidnapping, attempted sodomy of a child, and attempted rape of a child.

Key Legal Issues

Smith challenged his bindover on two grounds: (1) whether his actions constituted substantial steps toward the attempt crimes or merely preparation, and (2) whether he was entrapped as a matter of law. The case required the court to interpret Utah Code section 76-4-101, which defines a substantial step as conduct that “strongly corroborates the actor’s [intent]” to commit the underlying crime.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court rejected Smith’s argument that his actions were merely preparatory because additional steps remained before completing the crimes. Instead, the court emphasized that the substantial step analysis focuses on whether conduct strongly corroborates intent, not on counting remaining steps to completion. Smith’s coordinated actions—driving to the arranged location at the specified time and giving the agreed signal—left “no plausible reason” other than to carry out the criminal plan. Regarding entrapment, the court found no persistent pressure, appeals to sympathy, or exploitation of close relationships that would constitute entrapment as a matter of law.

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies that Utah courts apply a textualist interpretation to the attempt statute, focusing on whether conduct strongly corroborates intent rather than mechanical step-counting. Defense practitioners should frame substantial step arguments around ambiguity in intent rather than proximity to completion. The decision also reinforces that entrapment claims require showing that government conduct would induce an average person to commit the crime, maintaining the objective standard established in State v. Taylor.