State of Utah, Plaintiff and Respondent v. Phillip Paul Larocco, Defendant and Petitioner

Summary

The court held that possession of a stolen vehicle was a lesser included offense of theft under the specific facts proved, so the defendant could not be convicted of both offenses, although the trial court properly refused to give a lesser-offense instruction because no rational basis supported acquittal of theft. The court also held that the defendant had standing, that opening the vehicle door to inspect a concealed VIN was a search under the Utah Constitution, and that the warrantless search was unreasonable because probable cause existed but exigent circumstances did not. Because the VIN evidence might have affected the verdict, the court reversed and remanded for a new trial. Howe, Associate Chief Justice, dissenting, would have affirmed both convictions and found no unconstitutional search.