APPELLATE HIGHLIGHTS

  • SEE ALL
  • CONTRIBUTING AUTHORS

State v. Melancon, 2014 UT App 260, 339 P.3d 151 (Nov. 14, 2014) 

Nov 14, 2014

The Shondel doctrine requires the lesser of sentences when two crimes impose “disparate penalties for identical conduct [same elements for two different crimes].” State v. Williams, 2007 UT 98, ¶ 12. In this arson case, defendant argued that the elements of solicitation and accomplice liability are one in the same. The court disagreed, holding that accomplice liability is not a crime in itself, but an extension of liability for the underlying crime. Therefore, , one cannot be convicted of accomplice liability without the completion of the underlying crime, whereas one can be convicted of solicitation without completion of the underlying crime. “[T]he accomplice-liability and criminal-solicitation statutes do not require proof of the same elements and [] the Shondel doctrine is therefore inapplicable.”