Can Utah courts force unwanted affirmative defenses on criminal defendants? State v. Low Explained

The Utah Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Low provides crucial guidance on when trial courts may instruct juries on affirmative defenses over a defendant’s objection. The case arose when a defendant was convicted of manslaughter after the court instructed on both extreme emotional distress and imperfect self-defense manslaughter despite his objections.

Background and Facts

Erik Low shot and killed Michael Hirschey after an evening of cocaine use during which Hirschey repeatedly teased, manhandled, and threatened Low. At Low’s second trial, he claimed perfect self-defense but objected when the State requested jury instructions on extreme emotional distress manslaughter and imperfect self-defense manslaughter. The trial court overruled his objections and included both instructions. The jury convicted Low of manslaughter.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether a court may instruct a jury on affirmative defenses to murder over a defendant’s objection. Under Utah’s 1999 statutory revision, extreme emotional distress and imperfect self-defense became affirmative defenses to murder rather than lesser included offenses, fundamentally changing their procedural treatment.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court held that while prosecutors may request jury instructions on affirmative defenses when defendants present supporting evidence, they cannot force unwanted defenses on defendants. For imperfect self-defense, Low’s testimony about acting in self-defense necessarily presented evidence supporting the instruction. However, for extreme emotional distress, Low presented no evidence that he acted under emotional distress—witnesses testified he took the mistreatment “in stride” and wasn’t angry. The court found plain error in forcing this unwanted affirmative defense on Low.

Practice Implications

This decision emphasizes the importance of specific objections. Low’s conviction was reversed under plain error review because he failed to preserve his argument that courts lack authority to force affirmative defenses on defendants. The court also addressed double jeopardy implications, holding that while Low cannot be retried for murder (due to implied acquittal), the State may pursue other manslaughter charges on remand. Defense counsel should carefully consider strategic implications when clients present evidence that could support multiple theories of defense or mitigation.