A Month-Late Return Leads to a Felony Charge
Bell rented a car from Enterprise in June 2020. When she kept the vehicle past the July 10 due date, Enterprise spent several weeks trying to reach her before finally reporting the car stolen on August 11. A sheriff’s deputy warned Bell to return the car within ninety minutes, which she did, but she was arrested anyway.
At trial, Bell did not deny returning the vehicle late. Instead, her appeal centered on what was (and was not) printed in the rental contract.
The Missing Language That Became Pivotal
Utah Code section 76-6-410.5, as it existed in 2020, allowed prosecutors to charge a renter with theft of a rental vehicle if the renter knowingly failed to return the car within 72 hours of the contract’s return time and did so without notice or permission from the company.
But the statute also required something more. For rentals that are not periodic tenancies, the rental company had to include two items in the contract:
- Exact date and time the vehicle must be returned, and
- Maximum penalties under state law if the car is not returned within 72 hours.
Enterprise’s contract mentioned “maximum penalties,” but never explained what they were. Under Utah law, a second-degree felony carries a maximum sentence of 15 years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000. None of that was in the agreement.
At trial, Bell’s attorney never argued that this omission mattered. On appeal, Bell argued that her attorney should have requested a directed verdict because the State failed to prove an element of the crime.
Why the Court Treated Subsection (3) as an Element
The court looked closely at subsection (3) and asked a practical question: what happens if the rental company never provides the required notice? The statute does not impose penalties on the rental company, and the requirements do not appear in civil leasing laws. That means the only way the subsection has force is if it operates as an element that the State must prove.
If courts ignored the notice requirement, the subsection would serve no purpose. Utah’s rules of statutory interpretation require courts to avoid readings that render statutory language meaningless. So the court treated subsection (3) as an essential element of the offense.
Once framed that way, the case became simple. The State could not prove the element because the contract did not list the actual statutory penalties.
Trial Counsel’s Mistake and Why It Mattered
The ineffective-assistance analysis turned on two points:
1. The argument was straightforward.
The statutory language is clear—no complicated theory, no unsettled doctrine. The missing notice was obvious on the face of the contract.
2. Raising the issue carried no downside.
A directed-verdict motion would not conflict with any trial strategy. It was a free shot at dismissal.
Because the appellate court agreed that the trial court would have been obligated to grant the motion, Bell satisfied both deficiency and prejudice under Strickland.
What This Decision Means Going Forward
The court’s ruling has immediate consequences for theft-of-rental-vehicle prosecutions:
• Prosecutors must now prove the rental agreement contained the specific statutory penalty notice.
A generic reference to “maximum penalties” is not enough.
• Rental companies must review their contracts to ensure compliance.
If the contract omits the required language, prosecutors may be unable to secure a charge.
• Defense attorneys have a new, concrete basis for challenging these cases.
Failure to raise the issue could itself give rise to an ineffective-assistance claim.
The opinion also reinforces a broader principle: courts expect trial counsel to raise meritorious statutory arguments, even if they are novel, when the statute’s text is clear, and the motion carries no risk.
Final Takeaway
State v. Bell is a reminder that criminal statutes mean what they say. When a law ties criminal liability to specific contract language, the State must prove that the required language exists. Because the rental contract here did not include the maximum statutory penalties, and counsel never raised the issue, the conviction could not stand.
The court vacated Bell’s conviction, clarifying the elements the State must satisfy in similar cases in the future.