## Facts

- Claude Gilbert Utter lived with his adult son in Utter’s apartment.
- On the day of the killing, Utter drank heavily from the morning, including wine and whiskey.
- Witnesses saw the son enter the apartment; shortly thereafter they heard him say, “Dad, don’t.”
- The son emerged into the hallway with a fatal chest stab wound, stated “Dad stabbed me,” and died.
- Utter testified he remembered drinking but had no memory of the stabbing or events until he found himself in jail.
- Utter offered psychiatric testimony describing a “conditioned response” as rapid, automatic conduct in response to a stimulus.
- Utter testified that, due to World War II combat training and experience, he had twice in the 1950s reacted violently when someone unexpectedly approached him from behind.
- The trial court ruled “conditioned response” was not a recognized defense and instructed the jury to disregard that evidence.
- The jury convicted Utter of manslaughter as a lesser-included offense of second-degree murder.

## Issues

1. Whether evidence of a “conditioned response” should be treated as potentially negating the voluntary-act requirement (actus reus), rather than as an insanity/irresistible impulse theory.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to require submitting an automatism/unconsciousness defense to the jury, precluding an instruction to disregard the conditioned-response evidence.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the manslaughter conviction.
- The court recognized that a truly involuntary act committed during unconsciousness may negate actus reus and can be a complete defense in principle.
- The court held the trial court mischaracterized the theory as “irresistible impulse,” but the error did not warrant reversal because the evidentiary foundation for automatism was insufficient.
- The court concluded there was no evidence, direct or circumstantial, that a triggering stimulus occurred (e.g., an approach from behind) at the time of the stabbing.
- The court noted that voluntary intoxication does not constitute a complete defense based on “unconsciousness.”

## Legal Principles

- Criminal liability requires both actus reus and mens rea; actus reus includes a minimal requirement of volition.
- Conduct performed during genuine unconsciousness or automatism is not a voluntary “act” and, if proven, may defeat criminal liability.
- Unconsciousness that is voluntarily induced by alcohol or drugs is not a complete defense.
- Automatism/conditioned-response evidence must be tied to the event by sufficient facts permitting a reasonable inference that the defendant’s conduct was involuntary; generalized expert testimony and remote prior incidents are insufficient without evidence of a contemporaneous trigger.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Utter’s manslaughter conviction because, although automatism can negate the voluntary-act element, the record lacked a factual basis to infer the stabbing resulted from an automatic, unconscious conditioned response rather than a voluntary act, particularly in light of Utter’s voluntary intoxication.


State v. Utter, 4 Wn. App. 137, 479 P.2d 946 (Wash. Ct. App. 1971)