Utah Court of Appeals
What triggers qualify for extreme emotional distress jury instructions? State v. White Explained
Summary
Defendant drove her vehicle into her ex-husband’s workplace twice, striking him, after seeing him use a cell phone he had previously denied owning. She sought a jury instruction on extreme emotional distress based on accumulated stressors from their marriage dissolution, financial difficulties, and her therapist’s death.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
In State v. White, the Utah Court of Appeals clarified the demanding requirements for obtaining a jury instruction on the affirmative defense of extreme emotional distress in attempted murder cases. The decision reinforces that accumulated stressors alone cannot support this defense without a contemporaneous, highly provocative trigger.
Background and Facts
Brenda White drove her vehicle into her ex-husband’s workplace, striking him twice after chasing him through the building. The incident occurred hours after a heated argument about refinancing their former marital home. White sought a jury instruction on extreme emotional distress, citing accumulated stressors including marital infidelity, financial difficulties from their divorce settlement, loss of health insurance, and her therapist’s recent death. The specific trigger she identified was seeing her ex-husband using a cell phone he had previously denied owning.
Key Legal Issues
The court addressed two critical questions: (1) whether the reasonableness of extreme emotional distress must be evaluated from the defendant’s subjective viewpoint or an objective standard, and (2) whether accumulated long-term stressors can qualify as triggers for extreme emotional distress without a contemporaneous provocative event.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals applied an objective standard, noting that Utah’s legislature deliberately removed subjective language requiring evaluation from “circumstances as [the defendant] believes them to be” in 1985. The court emphasized that extreme emotional distress requires “intense feelings” that “overwhelm” a person’s reason, triggered by an “extremely unusual and overwhelming” external event. Crucially, the court distinguished cases like State v. Shumway and State v. Spillers, where defendants faced immediate, violent provocations, from White’s situation involving only her ex-husband’s cell phone use.
Practice Implications
This decision establishes that practitioners cannot rely on cumulative stressors alone to support extreme emotional distress instructions. The defense requires both objective reasonableness and contemporaneous provocation. Defense attorneys should focus on identifying specific, immediate triggering events rather than building cases solely on long-term relationship difficulties or life stressors. The ruling also confirms that Utah courts will not import domestic violence self-defense concepts into extreme emotional distress analysis without explicit legislative authorization.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. White
Citation
2009 UT App 81
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20071008-CA
Date Decided
March 26, 2009
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
The trial court correctly denied a jury instruction on extreme emotional distress because the defendant’s proffered evidence lacked a contemporaneous, highly provocative trigger that would cause a reasonable person to lose self-control.
Standard of Review
Correctness for whether a trial court committed error in refusing to give a requested jury instruction
Practice Tip
When seeking an extreme emotional distress instruction, ensure the evidence shows a specific, contemporaneous triggering event that would cause a reasonable person to lose self-control, rather than relying solely on accumulated long-term stressors.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.