Court of Appeals hears arguments over whether 'flee or elude' conviction required proof of intent

The Utah Court of Appeals heard oral argument on an appeal of Michael Chacon’s conviction for failing to stop for law enforcement, with defense counsel arguing the State never proved the specific intent necessary for a ‘flee or elude’ offense and that an incomplete jury instruction was prejudicial.

Appellant’s counsel Dylan Carlson told the three-judge panel that State v. Byrd requires more than mere temporal delay: to convict under the statute the jury must find a deliberate effort to get away from officers, not simply a decision to delay stopping. Carlson argued the record lacked evidence of that specific purpose and that the jury instruction omitted a mens rea word — “intentionally” — that could have changed the jury’s understanding of the element at issue. “We would ask that…