Opinion ID: 2526957
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: voluntary termination instruction

Text: ¶ 23 Utah Code section 76-2-307 provides for an affirmative defense of voluntary termination. Specifically, section 76-2-307 states, in part: It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution. . . that prior to the commission of the offense, the actor voluntarily terminated his effort . . . and either: (1) gave timely warning to . . . law enforcement. . . or the intended victim; or (2) wholly deprives his prior efforts of effectiveness in the commission. Utah Code Ann. § 76-2-307 (2003). A defendant is entitled to a [voluntary termination] instruction . . . if there is a reasonable basis in the evidence to justify giving the requested instruction. State v. Dumas, 721 P.2d 502, 506 (Utah 1986). We have already concluded that the crime is complete when an individual solicits a minor via the internet to engage in unlawful sexual activity. In this case, there is simply no evidence to suggest that Gallegos voluntarily terminated the online conversation prior to the commission of the crime, and it is irrelevant that he drove away from Union Middle School because no additional step beyond solicitation is required by the enticement statute. Accordingly, the voluntary termination instruction is inapplicable, and the trial court correctly denied Gallegos' request to present it to the jury.