State v. White
251 P.3d 820 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The affirmative defense of extreme emotional distress does not require a defendant to show a highly provocative and contemporaneous triggering event. Instead, the defense may be based on a cumulative series of stressful events over a substantial period, so long as there is some external trigger and a reasonable explanation for the distress from an objective viewpoint.
Facts:
- Brenda White and Jon White had a difficult eleven-year marriage, which ended in divorce. Brenda alleged Jon was addicted to pornography, had an affair, and suggested she participate in 'sexual threesomes.'
- Following the divorce, Brenda struggled financially to support her two daughters. Jon allegedly failed to pay child support and canceled her medical insurance, preventing her from obtaining medication for anxiety and depression.
- As part of the divorce settlement, Brenda was awarded the marital home but needed Jon's signature to refinance it; he refused to assist.
- On the morning of April 26, 2006, Brenda went to Jon's workplace to discuss the refinancing. An argument ensued, Jon refused to sign a quit-claim deed, and Brenda became extremely upset, played a song with violent lyrics, mimicked shooting him, and threatened him before driving away.
- Later that afternoon, Brenda returned to Jon's workplace and saw him talking on a cell phone that she claimed he had previously denied owning.
- Brenda stated that at that moment, her emotions took over, and she lost all self-control.
- She then accelerated her vehicle toward Jon, chased him as he fled, and drove her car through the glass doors of his office building.
- Inside the building's lobby, Brenda struck Jon twice with her car, causing injury to his leg.
Procedural Posture:
- The State charged Brenda White with attempted murder and criminal mischief in a Utah trial court.
- White filed a pretrial motion in limine requesting a jury instruction on the affirmative defense of extreme emotional distress.
- The trial court denied the motion, finding the stressors were 'common occurrences' for divorced couples and that White's actions demonstrated control.
- White filed a petition for an interlocutory appeal to the Utah Court of Appeals.
- The court of appeals, an intermediate appellate court, affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the defense requires a 'highly provocative triggering event' that is 'contemporaneous with the defendant's loss of self-control.'
- White (petitioner) filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, which the Utah Supreme Court (the state's highest court) granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Utah's affirmative defense of extreme emotional distress require a defendant to demonstrate a highly provocative and contemporaneous triggering event as a prerequisite for a jury instruction on the defense?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Nehring
No. Utah's extreme emotional distress defense does not require a defendant to show a highly provocative and contemporaneous triggering event. The court of appeals applied an incorrect legal standard by imposing this requirement, which improperly retreats to the rejected 'heat of passion' doctrine. The extreme emotional distress defense was enacted to expand upon, not replicate, the narrow 'heat of passion' standard. The proper analysis requires considering the defendant's reaction in the broader context of all past experiences and cumulative stress, as a 'significant mental trauma' can simmer for a substantial time before coming to the fore. While an external triggering event is necessary, it need not be immediate or highly provocative in isolation. The reasonableness of the explanation for the distress must be evaluated from the viewpoint of a reasonable person in the defendant's then-existing circumstances, not from the defendant's subjective perspective.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the scope of the extreme emotional distress defense in Utah, distinguishing it from the narrower, common-law 'heat of passion' defense. By rejecting a strict contemporaneity requirement, the court allows for a more holistic evaluation of a defendant's mental state, including the cumulative impact of long-term stressors. This precedent makes the defense more accessible to defendants whose violent acts are triggered by a seemingly minor event that is the culmination of a long series of provocations. It instructs lower courts to consider the entire factual context behind a defendant's loss of self-control, which will likely lead to more defendants receiving a jury instruction on this defense.
Unlock the full brief for State v. White