theory is relevant if the theory is never actually raised at trial. And the only authority the lead opinion cites for such a proposition is a case in which there was sufficient evidence to support a jury instruction on accomplice liability, which instruction would have clearly put the defendant on notice at trial that such a theory was being considered, see State v. White, 577 P.2d 552, 554 (Utah 1978). Certainly had the accomplice liability theory been advanced at trial, I wholeheartedly agree that there would have been sufficient evidence to support the theory. But this is precisely the point-the theory was not advanced at trial and therefore the defense could not be expected to challenge such a theory. Cf. Lankford v. Idaho, 500 U.S. 110, 120, 111 S.Ct. 1723, 114 L.Ed.2d 173 (1991) (<HOLDING>). T26 Instead, an instructive case for the
holding that the trial judge properly restricted defense counsels references to the bible in support of his argument that the death penalty is morally wrong holding that leaning towards the death penalty is not the same as an automatic vote for the death penalty holding that absent some showing that prosecutorial discretion was abused in the selection of cases in which the death penalty was sought there is no basis for either a claim under the eighth amendment or a claim under the equal protection clause recognizing that although there were no limits placed on the defense counsels preparation it was surely reasonable for the defense to assume that there was no reason to present argument or evidence directed at whether the death penalty was either appropriate or permissible where the prosecution never argued for the application of the death penalty holding that where the relevant facts were undisputed the only question for review was whether there was any evidence or reason to support a dismissal for want of prosecution