State v. Utter

The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One – Panel 1
479 P.2d 946, 4 Wn. App. 137 (1971)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An act committed during a state of unconsciousness or automatism is not a criminal act because it is not voluntary. For a defendant to be entitled to a jury instruction on this defense, they must present substantial evidence that they were in such a state and that a specific stimulus triggered the involuntary action.

Facts:

Claude Gilbert Utter was a combat infantry veteran from World War II who received a 60% disability pension.
Utter testified that due to his jungle warfare training, he had a 'conditioned response' and had previously reacted violently when approached unexpectedly from behind.
On the day of the incident, Utter began drinking in the morning and consumed a significant amount of wine and whiskey, eventually having no memory of the key events.
Utter's adult son entered Utter's apartment.
Shortly after the son entered, he was heard saying, 'Dad, don’t.'
The son then stumbled into the hallway with a fatal stab wound to the chest and stated, 'Dad stabbed me' before dying.

Procedural Posture:

Claude Gilbert Utter was charged with second-degree murder in a trial court.
At trial, Utter introduced evidence regarding a 'conditioned response' to argue his actions were involuntary.
The trial court ruled that this was not a valid defense and instructed the jury to disregard the evidence.
The jury found Utter guilty of the lesser-included offense of manslaughter.
Utter (appellant) appealed the conviction to the intermediate court of appeals.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Did the trial court commit reversible error by instructing the jury to disregard evidence of a defendant's 'conditioned response' defense, where the defense was intended to show the act was involuntary?

Opinions:

Majority - Farris, A.C.J.

No, the trial court did not commit reversible error. While the legal theory of automatism is a valid defense distinct from insanity, the defendant failed to provide substantial evidence to support it. The defense of automatism or unconsciousness negates the 'actus reus,' or the voluntary act, which is an essential component of every crime. An involuntary act, like a spasm or an act committed while unconscious, is not a willed movement and therefore cannot give rise to criminal liability. However, this defense is not available if the state of unconsciousness was voluntarily induced by intoxication. To present this defense to a jury, the defendant must produce substantial evidence that they were in an automatistic state. In this case, there was no evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, of what stimulus might have triggered Utter's alleged conditioned response, leaving the jury to speculate. Therefore, the evidence was insufficient to warrant a jury instruction on the defense.

Analysis:

This case is significant for formally distinguishing the defense of automatism, which negates the voluntariness of the actus reus, from the insanity defense, which negates the mens rea. It establishes that while automatism is a valid legal theory, a defendant must meet a substantial evidence threshold to get the defense before a jury. This decision prevents defendants from relying on pure speculation and requires a concrete factual basis for claims of involuntary action, thereby balancing the recognition of a valid defense with the need for evidentiary integrity.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: State v. Utter (1971)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature