Opinion ID: 2635270
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: defendant was entitled to a jury instruction for manslaughter based on extreme emotional distress

Text: ¶13 Murder may be reduced to manslaughter where a defendant caused a person's death under the influence of extreme emotional distress for which there is a reasonable explanation or excuse. Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-203(3)(a)(i), (3)(d) (1999). [T]he reasonableness of an explanation or excuse . . . shall be determined from the viewpoint of a reasonable person under the then existing circumstances. Id. § 76-5-203(3)(c). ¶14 A person suffers extreme emotional distress when exposed to `extremely unusual and overwhelming stress' such that the average reasonable person would react by experiencing a loss of self-control. State v. Shumway, 2002 UT 124, ¶ 9, 63 P.3d 94 (quoting State v. Bishop, 753 P.2d 439, 471 (Utah 1988)). In such a situation, a person's reason would be overwhelmed by intense feelings, such as passion, anger, distress, grief, or excessive agitation. Id. ¶15 In Shumway, this court held that the defendant, a minor, was entitled to an extreme emotional distress manslaughter instruction when he stabbed his friend during a sleepover. Id. ¶¶ 2, 10-11, 13. The victim, upset with the defendant for beating him at video games, retrieved a knife and began lunging at the defendant. Id. ¶ 10. The defendant gained control over the knife and repeatedly stabbed the victim. Id. At trial, witnesses testified that the victim had a tendency towards aggression. Id. This evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the defense, offered a sufficient rational basis for a jury to conclude that the defendant was experiencing extreme emotional distress and to convict on the lesser included offense. Id. ¶ 13. ¶16 Like Shumway, evidence in this case could be interpreted to support Defendant's contention that he experienced extreme emotional distress and was therefore entitled to a manslaughter instruction. Defendant testified that he and Jackson were arguing prior to the altercation and that Jackson was upset with him, accusing him of snitching to drug enforcement officers. The tone of the conversation made Defendant nervous. Defendant stated that Jackson retrieved a firearm and struck Defendant on the back of the head. Defendant testified that the blow left him cloudy, dazed, uncomfortable, and scared. According to the nurse's testimony, the blow may have resulted in a two-inch hematoma that was present on Defendant's head the day after the shooting. Defendant testified that after being struck, he turned to face Jackson, who was cocking his arm back to strike Defendant again. At that point, Defendant shot Jackson three times, although at trial he testified that he remembered firing only a single shot. Further, witnesses testified that Jackson had a reputation for violence. Thus, a rational jury could, adopting Defendant's version of events, find that he was experiencing extreme emotional distress for which there was a reasonable explanation or excuse when he shot Jackson. ¶17 The State contends that unlike Shumway, in this case there was no rational basis in the evidence presented at trial to warrant the extreme emotional distress manslaughter instruction. Rather, the State maintains that a rational jury could not conclude that Defendant was overwhelmed such that a reasonable person would experience a loss of self-control. The substance of the State's argument is twofold. ¶18 First, the State's assertion rests on its own conclusion that Defendant acted rationally throughout the encounter; however, the question of whether Defendant acted rationally is a question of fact properly belonging to the jury. While a jury could adopt the State's version of events and convict Defendant of murder, a jury could also believe Defendant's interpretation of the evidence and conclude that he was not acting rationally, but rather was under extreme emotional distress as a result of Jackson's attack and convict on the lesser offense of manslaughter. ¶19 Second, the State contends that Defendant did not present evidence that he was in fact experiencing extreme emotional distress. Rather, the State maintains that Defendant merely testified that he felt nervous and that the blow to his head left him feeling cloudy, dazed, uncomfortable, and scared  terms not indicative, in the State's view, of extreme emotional distress. Contrary to the implications of the State's position, a defendant in a criminal case bears no burden of persuasion. State v. Torres, 619 P.2d 694, 695 (Utah 1980). The ultimate burden of proving the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt remains on the state, whether defendant offers any evidence in an effort to prove affirmative defenses or not. Id.; see also State v. Starks, 627 P.2d 88, 92 (Utah 1981); State v. Curtis, 542 P.2d 744, 746 (Utah 1975); People v. Tracy, 1 Utah 343, 346 (Utah 1876). It is sufficient . . . that the evidence or lack thereof creates a reasonable doubt as to any element of the crime. Torres, 619 P.2d at 695; see also State v. Knoll, 712 P.2d 211, 214 (Utah 1985); State v. Wilson, 565 P.2d 66, 68 (Utah 1977). A defendant is not required to testify at all, nor is he required to present any evidence at trial; he may simply point to ambiguities or inconsistencies in the evidence presented by the State and require the State to prove every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Powell, 2007 UT 9, ¶ 29, ___ P.3d ___. Accordingly, a defendant is not required to use particular language or key words in his testimony to identify his mental state as extreme emotional distress before a jury may consider that defense in a criminal trial. As long as the evidence presented at trial supports a defendant's theory of the crime and provides a rational basis for a verdict on the lesser included offense, a defendant is entitled to the jury instruction if he requests it. ¶20 Reviewing the evidence presented at trial in the light most favorable to the defense, we hold that there was evidence from which a jury reasonably could conclude that Defendant was under the influence of extreme emotional distress at the time of the shooting. A jury could infer Defendant's mental state from the testimony of Defendant and others that supported his theory of the case. This evidence includes Defendant's testimony that he felt nervous and that the blow to his head left him feeling cloudy, dazed, uncomfortable, and scared. It also includes Defendant's rendition of the events that took place the night of the shooting, the testimony of the nurse regarding Defendant's wound, the medical examiner's testimony of the positioning of Jackson's body, the evidence of Jackson's reputation for violence, and any other evidence that substantiated Defendant's theory of the case. Based on the entirety of the evidence at trial, a jury could choose to believe Defendant's version of events and conclude that Defendant was experiencing extreme emotional distress at the time of the shooting for which there was a reasonable explanation or excuse.