Utah Court of Appeals
When can defendants claim extreme emotional distress in Utah criminal cases? State v. Augustine Explained
Summary
Augustine appealed his attempted murder conviction, arguing the trial court erroneously excluded his expert witness testimony on extreme emotional distress, that jury instructions were inadequate, and that allowing his co-defendant to invoke Fifth Amendment privilege before the jury violated his constitutional rights. The court of appeals affirmed, finding Augustine was not entitled to the extreme emotional distress defense because he created the stressful circumstances himself by seeking out a confrontation.
Analysis
The Utah Court of Appeals decision in State v. Augustine provides important guidance for criminal defense attorneys on when the extreme emotional distress defense is available to defendants charged with serious crimes.
Background and Facts
Augustine was convicted of attempted murder after stabbing the victim multiple times during an altercation. Augustine claimed he acted under extreme emotional distress based on three triggering events: his concern about having contracted a sexually transmitted disease from his girlfriend (who allegedly got it from the victim), his decision to confront the victim which led to a fight, and seeing blood and his co-defendant knocked down during the altercation. The trial court excluded Augustine’s expert witness testimony on his psychological background and childhood trauma.
Key Legal Issues
The court addressed whether Augustine was entitled to an extreme emotional distress defense and whether the trial court properly excluded expert testimony supporting that defense. The case also involved challenges to jury instructions on accomplice liability and constitutional claims regarding a co-defendant’s invocation of Fifth Amendment rights before the jury.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court applied an abuse of discretion standard to the exclusion of expert testimony and correctness review for jury instructions and constitutional questions. The court held that Augustine was not entitled to the extreme emotional distress defense because the triggering stressors were self-imposed rather than situations to which he was exposed. The defense requires that defendants be “exposed to extremely unusual and overwhelming stress” rather than creating stressful circumstances themselves. Since Augustine sought out the victim for retribution based on his own assumptions and brought a weapon to the confrontation, the resulting stress was self-created.
Practice Implications
This decision establishes a critical distinction for Utah practitioners: the extreme emotional distress defense is unavailable when defendants create their own stressful circumstances. Defense attorneys must carefully evaluate whether triggering events were external stressors beyond the defendant’s control or self-imposed situations. The court emphasized that allowing self-created stress to support this defense would essentially make it available to most defendants, undermining its limited purpose as a mitigating defense for truly extraordinary circumstances.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. Augustine
Citation
2013 UT App 61
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20110454-CA
Date Decided
March 7, 2013
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
A defendant is not entitled to an extreme emotional distress defense when the triggering stressors are self-imposed rather than situations to which the defendant was exposed.
Standard of Review
Abuse of discretion for exclusion of expert testimony; correctness for jury instruction challenges and constitutional questions
Practice Tip
When asserting an extreme emotional distress defense, ensure triggering events were external stressors the defendant was exposed to, not circumstances the defendant created through their own actions.
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.