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

Heading: defendant was entitled to a jury instruction for imperfect legal justification manslaughter

Text: ¶21 The court of appeals found that the same evidence that supported Defendant's theory of extreme emotional distress manslaughter also supported his theory of imperfect legal justification manslaughter. State v. Spillers, 2005 UT App 283, ¶ 25, 116 P.3d 985. We agree. ¶22 Under Utah Code section 76-5-203, murder may be reduced to manslaughter when the defendant caused another's death under a reasonable belief that the circumstances provided a legal justification or excuse for his conduct although the conduct was not legally justifiable or excusable under the existing circumstances. Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-203(3)(a)(ii), (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). ¶23 At trial, the court found the evidence sufficient to instruct the jury on perfect self-defense but not on imperfect legal justification manslaughter. [2] This was error. In State v. Howell, this court stated that for both perfect and imperfect self-defense, the same basic facts [are] at issue. 649 P.2d 91, 95 (Utah 1982) (holding that the court in a murder trial properly gave a lesser included offense instruction on manslaughter over the defendant's objection). Although the State argues that the testimony at trial could be interpreted only as finding that Defendant was either guilty of murder or acquitted under a self-defense theory, we conclude that the evidence could also be interpreted by a jury that Defendant was entitled to defend himself against Jackson, but not entitled to use deadly force when Jackson only struck Defendant with his gun. Thus, as the court of appeals properly recognized, the conflicting interpretations of the evidence create a question of fact appropriately placed before a jury. State v. Baker, 671 P.2d 152, 159 (Utah 1983). Accordingly, we hold that Defendant was entitled to have the jury instructed on imperfect legal justification manslaughter.