Opinion ID: 6218251
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: both offenses arose from a single criminal

Text: EPISODE ¶14 The Single Criminal Episode Statute sets forth a two-prong definition of ―single criminal episode.‖ See UTAH CODE § 76-1-401. First, the offenses must be ―closely related in time.‖ Id. Second, the offenses must be ―incident to an attempt or an accomplishment of a single criminal objective.‖ Id. We find that both prongs are satisfied. ¶15 On the first prong, there is no question, and the parties do not dispute, that both offenses were ―closely related in time.‖ Sisneros intended to deprive the Son of the used car the moment he took it from the Father in Weber County. In so doing, Sisneros committed the theft by receiving offense at the exact same time as the aggravated robbery offenses. See UTAH CODE § 76-6-408(2) (―A person commits theft if the person receives, retains, or disposes of the property of another knowing that the property is stolen, or believing that the property is probably stolen . . . intending to deprive the owner of the property.‖); id. § 76-6-302(1) (―A person commits aggravated robbery if in the course of committing robbery, he . . . takes or attempts to take an operable motor vehicle.‖). ¶16 On the second prong, whether Sisneros‘s theft by receiving and aggravated robbery offenses were both ―incident to an attempt or an accomplishment of a single criminal objective‖ is a question of fact that must be viewed under the totality of the circumstances.2 See State v. Rushton, 2017 UT 21, ¶¶ 10, 12, 395 P.3d ___________________________________________________________ 2Utah courts analyze questions of fact under the totality of the circumstances in a variety of criminal law contexts. See, e.g., State v. Baker, 2010 UT 18, ¶ 17, 229 P.3d 650 (analyzing the reasonableness of the length and time of a traffic-stop detention under the totality of the circumstances); State v. Mabe, 864 P.2d 890, 892 (Utah 1993) (determining whether a confession was voluntary under the totality of the circumstances); State v. Hansen, 2002 UT 125, ¶ 48, 63 P.3d 650 (analyzing consent to an encounter with police under the totality of the circumstances); State v. Case, 884 (continued . . .) 5 STATE v. SISNEROS Opinion of the Court 92; see also State v. Selzer, 2013 UT App 3, ¶ 26, 294 P.3d 617 (―Whether or not there is a single criminal objective depends on the specific facts of the case viewed under . . . the totality of the circumstances.‖ (alteration in original) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)). In Rushton, we articulated several nonexhaustive factors our courts have utilized to analyze whether a defendant‘s conduct was ―incident to an attempt or an accomplishment of a single criminal objective.‖ Rushton, 2017 UT 21, ¶¶ 1, 3. In particular, we instructed courts to examine ―the location where the crimes were committed, the nature of the offenses . . ., whether the crimes involved different victims, and whether the defendant had the opportunity to deliberately engage in the next-in-time offense.‖ Id. ¶ 3. We articulated these factors with the intended purpose of helping courts apply the statutory definition of single criminal episode reasonably—and to ―evince the true intent and purpose of the Legislature.‖ Id. ¶ 11 (quoting Marion Energy, Inc. v. KFJ Ranch P'ship, 2011 UT 50, ¶ 14, 267 P.3d 863).3 P.2d 1274, 1276 (Utah Ct. App. 1994) (determining whether articulable facts supported reasonable suspicion under the totality of the circumstances); City of Orem v. Henrie, 868 P.2d 1384, 1388 (Utah Ct. App. 1994) (basing the determination of exigent circumstances for warrantless search on the totality of the circumstances).