Utah Code » Title 76, Chapter 2 — Principles of Criminal Responsibility; part 76-2-3 — Defenses to Criminal Responsibility
Utah Code

Utah Code § 76-2-307 (2026)

Voluntary termination of efforts prior to offense

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section UT-LEGle.utah.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution in which an actor's criminal responsibility arises from the actor's own conduct or from being a party to an offense under Section

76-2-202

that prior to the commission of the offense, the actor voluntarily terminated the actor's effort to promote or facilitate its commission and either:

gave timely warning to the proper law enforcement authorities or the intended victim; or
wholly deprives the actor's prior efforts of effectiveness in the commission.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases, 1977–2014 · leading case: State v. Eagle, 611 P.2d 1211 (Utah 1980).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Eagle, 611 P.2d 1211 (Utah 1980). · cites it 8× “Defendant contends that his proposed instruction of the affirmative defense of voluntary termination was in accordance with Section 76-2-307, [1] which provides: It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution in which an actor's criminal responsibility arises from his own conduct…”
State v. Gallegos, 2009 UT 42 (Utah 2009). · cites it 6× “Utah Code Ann. § 76-2-307 (2008). "A defendant is entitled to a [voluntary termination] instruction .”
State v. Briggs, 2008 UT 75 (Utah 2008). · cites it 2× “" Utah Code Ann. § 76-2-307 (2) (2006). Although the record does show that Briggs was uncomfortable with her situation while in Phoenix, there is nothing in the record to show that she did anything to deprive her prior efforts of their effectiveness in aiding Martinez.”
State v. Brown, 607 P.2d 261 (Utah 1980). · cites it 2× “Both Codes set forth similar mitigating circumstances in the penalty phase, § 76-2-307(1)(a) through (g). The Utah Code is silent and provides no guidelines as to the manner in which the sentencing body deals with the mitigating and aggravating circumstances.”
State v. Roth, 2001 UT 103 (Utah 2001). · cites it 2× “Utah Code Ann. § 76-2-307 (1999). There was nothing in the evidence presented at trial that tended to show Roth "voluntarily terminated" his escape.”
State v. Velarde, 734 P.2d 440 (Utah 1986). “Defendant did not show that he voluntarily terminated his efforts prior to the commission of the offense and either gave timely warning to the police or to the intended victim or wholly deprived his prior efforts of effectiveness as required by Utah's withdrawal statute.”
State v. Lingmann, 320 P.3d 1063 (Utah Ct. App. 2014). “§ 76-2-307. 125 While it may be true, as Lingmann asserts, that the criminal offense of solicitation is complete the moment a defendant extends an offer, the term "offense" in seetion 76-2-307 could be read to refer to the underlying criminal act solicited rather than the…”
State v. Dumas, 721 P.2d 502 (Utah 1986). “, 1953, § 76-2-307 (Repl.VoI. 8B, 1978 ed.). 17 .”
State v. Smith, 571 P.2d 578 (Utah 1977). · cites it 2× “Defendant asserts that the evidence supports such an instruction and cites, as the applicable statute, Section 76-2-307, Utah Code Annotated, 1953, as amended: It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution in which an actor’s criminal responsibility arises from his own conduct .”
State v. Wallace, 2006 UT App 232 (Utah Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “See Utah Code Ann. § 76-2-307 (1953). 5 . Howells, Inc.”
Utah Code § 76-2-307(1)(a): 1 case
State v. Brown, 607 P.2d 261 (Utah 1980). “Both Codes set forth similar mitigating circumstances in the penalty phase, § 76-2-307(1)(a) through (g). The Utah Code is silent and provides no guidelines as to the manner in which the sentencing body deals with the mitigating and aggravating circumstances.”
Utah Code § 76-2-307(l)(a): 1 case
State v. Brown, 607 P.2d 261 (Utah 1980). “Both Codes set forth similar mitigating circumstances in the penalty phase, § 76-2-307(1)(a) through (g). The Utah Code is silent and provides no guidelines as to the manner in which the sentencing body deals with the mitigating and aggravating circumstances.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.