## Facts

- Brenda Christine White was charged with attempted murder after she drove her vehicle toward her ex-husband, Jon White, at his workplace and struck him, causing injury.
- White and Jon had divorced after an eleven-year marriage; White attributed significant emotional strain to alleged infidelity, pornography use, sexual coercion, and stressors during the dissolution.
- White claimed additional post-separation stress from Jon’s alleged lack of financial support, reduced involvement with their children, cancellation of her health insurance while she needed medication, and financial burdens from the property settlement.
- White attempted to refinance the home she received in the settlement and asserted that Jon alternated between cooperating and refusing to assist.
- On April 26, 2006, White went to Jon’s workplace to discuss refinancing; Jon told her to leave and escorted her out, citing prior workplace harassment.
- Later that day, White returned; she saw Jon exit the building while talking on a cell phone, which she claimed triggered intense anger because Jon had allegedly denied having a phone to avoid communicating with her.
- White asserted that accumulated marital and divorce-related stress “boiled over” at that moment, leading to extreme emotional distress and the charged conduct.

## Issues

1. Whether the extreme emotional distress (EED) mitigation requires an objective assessment of whether there is a “reasonable explanation or excuse,” rather than a purely subjective assessment of the defendant’s emotional state.
2. Whether Utah’s EED mitigation requires a highly provocative, contemporaneous triggering event that precipitates the defendant’s extreme emotional distress at the time of the act.
3. Whether White’s proffered evidence (cumulative relationship stress and the cell-phone incident) was sufficient to require an EED jury instruction for attempted murder.

## Decision

- The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of White’s requested EED jury instruction.
- The court held that the “reasonable explanation or excuse” component of EED is evaluated under an objective standard.
- The court held that Utah law requires a highly provocative, contemporaneous trigger, and White’s proffer did not establish one.
- The court concluded that no reasonable jury could find EED on the proffered facts; therefore, the instruction was properly denied.

## Legal Principles

- Utah’s EED mitigation requires that the defendant acted under extreme emotional distress “for which there is a reasonable explanation or excuse,” which entails an objective “reasonable person” evaluation.
- EED mitigation is not established by the defendant’s idiosyncratic sensitivity or subjective reaction alone.
- Utah’s EED mitigation requires a highly provocative, contemporaneous triggering event closely connected to the charged act; cumulative stress and historical grievances are generally insufficient absent such a trigger.
- When the proffered evidence cannot satisfy the legal threshold for EED as a matter of law, the trial court may deny an EED jury instruction.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the refusal to instruct on extreme emotional distress because Utah applies an objective reasonableness test and requires a highly provocative, contemporaneous trigger, which was not shown by evidence of long-term marital stress and the asserted cell-phone sighting.


State v. White, 206 P.3d 646 (Utah Ct. App. 2009)