Tyler Robinson contends state has not proven elements needed for ‘aggravated murder’
Aug 12, 2026, 10:03 AM
Tyler Robinson, accused in the fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk, listens to the prosecution during a preliminary hearing in 4th District Court in Provo on July 7. (Trent Nelson)
(Trent Nelson)
PROVO — Tyler Robinson says he should not be bound over to stand trial for aggravated murder and the six other charges he’s accused of because the state relied on hearsay evidence and speculation, and because there were no aggravating factors.
Only defendants charged with aggravated murder in Utah are eligible for the death penalty if convicted.
Robinson, 23, is accused of shooting and killing conservative political activist Charlie Kirk on the campus of Utah Valley University on Sept. 10, 2025. Prosecutors have stated that they are seeking the death penalty.
In July, during a week-long preliminary hearing, prosecutors and defense attorneys presented their reasons as to why Robinson should or should not stand trial on the charges levied against him. A preliminary hearing is held to determine whether there is sufficient probable cause to go to trial on the charges that have been filed. A person’s guilt or innocence is not determined at a preliminary hearing, and the bar the state must meet to show probable cause during the hearing is low.
Prosecutors submitted their memorandum on July 28 outlining why they believe Robinson should stand trial for aggravated murder. Tuesday evening, Robinson’s defense team filed their reply.
In a 41-page briefing submitted to 4th District Judge Tony Graf, Robinson’s defense attorneys argue that the state failed to prove there was an aggravating factor with Robinson’s murder charge, a required element to seek the death penalty.
“The state’s presentation of its evidence as to this alleged circumstance in aggravation at the preliminary hearing in July wholly fails to carry its burden of proof,” the briefing states. “The state has failed to establish probable cause that the shooter ‘knowingly created a great risk of death to another other than Charlie Kirk’ and himself.”
Utah law states that if a defendant “knowingly created a great risk of death to another individual” other than the victim who was killed, it can be used as an aggravating factor. But Robinson’s defense team notes that the state needs to show there was a “high probability” that Robinson put the thousands of people gathered at the Turning Point USA rally where Kirk was speaking at risk for death, and not just a “possibility” of that happening.
“The state has failed to show that the actual conduct created a ‘high probability’ that someone other than Mr. Kirk would be killed and, thus, this theory fails as a matter of law,” according to their briefing. “Where no other person was injured in a manner creating a great risk of death, and no other shots were fired, the allegation of … (an) aggravator cannot be sustained.”
Defense attorneys contend there was no one else in the “line of fire” when the fatal shot was fired. Furthermore, “the firing of a single shot at an intended victim that hit only the intended victim” is not an aggravating factor “merely because other people were in the vicinity.”
“Having a loaded weapon does not mean that the individual believes there is a high probability of missing and killing someone else. It only means that they have the ability to fire more than one round. The facts here are that the shooter did not miss his intended target and did not chamber another round, leaving the spent cartridge in the rifle,” the defense briefing continues.
In this case, the defense says the shooter had a clear shot.
“The bullet that struck and killed Mr. Kirk was not fired in an enclosed bedroom or space but rather, an open-air arena with what the state’s witnesses termed, ‘a clear line of sight.’ There were no threats to others in the course of conduct. There was no one ‘directly’ next to Mr. Kirk when he was shot, and there was no one under the tent on the side that Mr. Kirk was struck or behind him in the breezeway. Multiple shots were not fired. There were no ricocheting bullets.”
Robinson is also charged with committing a violent offense in the presence of a child, which is also used as a potential penalty enhancement on his aggravated murder charge. But defense attorneys argue that Robinson never scouted out the crowd before Kirk was killed, and he was on a college campus.
“There was no evidence that Mr. Robinson was anywhere near the crowd that formed prior to the rally, or that he observed children or families with children making their way to the space where the rally occurred,” the defense states. “If a defendant were to engage in crimes of violence at an obviously occupied elementary school or a day care facility, it might be reasonable to infer the knowledge required (for the charge).”
Prosecutors also added a victim targeting penalty enhancement on the charges of aggravated murder and discharge of a firearm causing serious injury. But defense attorneys contend that the state has not proven the elements required for “victim targeting.”
During the preliminary hearing, prosecutors presented as evidence a text conversation between Robinson and his roommate and lover, Lance Twiggs, in which Robinson told him, “I had enough of his hatred. Some hate can’t be negotiated out.” The defense, however, contends that using the word “hatred” is not enough for a victim targeting enhancement and that prosecutors are only speculating on the reasons why Kirk was shot based on Robinson and Twiggs’ relationship.
“Mr. Robinson does not tell Mr. Twiggs in this text exchange, nor was there, according to Mr. Twiggs, any prior communication between them concerning Mr. Kirk, nor that Mr. Robinson targeted Mr. Kirk because of his religious beliefs or his political beliefs or any other category of beliefs. He refers to ‘hatred’ and nothing more,” the defense briefing states. “There is no evidence of specific political expressions of Mr. Kirk which, if any, Mr. Robinson may have been aware of or focused on. There are no writings attributed to Mr. Robinson on this topic. There are no other statements by Mr. Robinson to third parties which address Mr. Kirk or his political viewpoints and Mr. Robinson’s perception of them.”
Even after police searched Robinson’s residence, his parents’ home and Robinson’s electronic devices, “there is nothing to base this sentencing enhancement upon other than that single criticism of Mr. Kirk’s ‘hatred,'” the defense contends.
“In the face of the absence of evidence, the state focuses on Mr. Robinson’s sexuality and Mr. Twiggs’ gender identity, if only because those are two topics on which Mr. Kirk was, in fact, widely viewed as expressing hatred and intolerance. However, that is not an evidentiary substitute for proof that Mr. Robinson targeted Mr. Kirk because of those expressions. It is the state’s speculation that he did so.”
Speculation and hearsay became key topics during the week-long preliminary hearing, with defense attorneys submitting a standing objection to most of the state’s evidence, contending it was all hearsay that would not be admissible at trial.
“This court may not bind over Mr. Robinson based upon the state’s evidence consisting primarily of hearsay that has not been assessed for reliability,” defense attorneys argued in their briefing. “The state makes little effort to distinguish between the evidence it presented and inferences it asks this court to make based upon that evidence.”
The state has now until Aug. 18 to file a rebuttal. After that, another hearing will be held in court on Sept. 1 for both sides to summarize their cases before Graf makes his decision on whether Robinson should stand trial on all the counts he’s facing.
