Utah Code
Utah Code § 76-5-205.5 (2026)
Special mitigation for mental condition or provocation -- Burden of proof -- Charge reduction
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
UT-LEGle.utah.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
As used in this section:
"Extreme emotional distress" means an overwhelming reaction of anger, shock, or grief that:
causes the defendant to be incapable of reflection and restraint; and
would cause an objectively reasonable person to be incapable of reflection and restraint.
"Extreme emotional distress" does not include:
a condition resulting from a mental condition; or
distress that is substantially caused by the defendant's own conduct.
"Mental condition" means the same as that term is defined in Section 76-2-305.
The terms defined in Section 76-1-101.5 apply to this section.
Special mitigation exists when a defendant causes the death of another individual or attempts to cause the death of another individual:
under circumstances that are not legally justified, but the defendant acts under a delusion attributable to a mental condition;
the nature of the delusion is such that, if the facts existed as the defendant believed them to be in the delusional state, those facts would provide a legal justification for the defendant's conduct; and
the defendant's actions, in light of the delusion, are reasonable from the objective viewpoint of a reasonable person; or
except as provided in Subsection (4), under the influence of extreme emotional distress that is predominantly caused by the victim's highly provoking act immediately preceding the defendant's actions.
A defendant who is under the influence of voluntarily consumed, injected, or ingested alcohol, controlled substances, or volatile substances at the time of the alleged offense may not claim mitigation of the offense under Subsection (2)(a) on the basis of a mental condition if the alcohol or substance causes, triggers, or substantially contributes to the defendant's mental condition.
A defendant may not claim special mitigation under Subsection (2)(b) if:
the time period after the victim's highly provoking act and before the defendant's actions was long enough for an objectively reasonable person to have recovered from the extreme emotional distress;
the defendant responded to the victim's highly provoking act by inflicting serious or substantial bodily injury on the victim over a prolonged period, or by inflicting torture on the victim, regardless of whether the victim was conscious during the infliction of serious or substantial bodily injury or torture; or
the victim's highly provoking act, described in Subsection (2)(b), is comprised of words alone.
If the trier of fact finds that the elements of aggravated murder, attempted aggravated murder, murder, or attempted murder are proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and also finds that the existence of special mitigation under this section is established by a preponderance of the evidence, the court shall enter a judgment of conviction in accordance with Subsection 76-5-202(3)(f)(i), 76-5-202(3)(f)(ii), 76-5-203(3)(b)(i), or 76-5-203(3)(b)(ii), respectively.
If the issue of special mitigation is submitted to the trier of fact, the trier of fact shall return a special verdict at the same time as the general verdict, indicating whether it finds special mitigation.
If a jury is the trier of fact, a unanimous vote of the jury is required to find special mitigation under this section.
If the jury unanimously finds that the elements of an offense described in Subsection (5) are proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and finds special mitigation by a unanimous vote, the jury shall return a general verdict finding the defendant guilty of the charged crime and a special verdict indicating special mitigation.
If the jury unanimously finds that the elements of an offense described in Subsection (5) are proven beyond a reasonable doubt but finds by a unanimous vote that special mitigation is not established, or if the jury is unable to unanimously agree that special mitigation is established, the jury shall convict the defendant of the greater offense for which the prosecution proves all the elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 2000–2024 · leading case: State v. Lambdin, 2017 UT 46 (Utah 2017).
State v. Lambdin, 2017 UT 46 (Utah 2017). “If a jury “finds the elements [of murder] are proven beyond a reasonable doubt” by the State, and the jury unanimously finds the elements of extreme emotional distress are “established by a preponderance of the evidence” by the defendant, the jury must reduce the verdict from…”
State v. Drej, 2010 UT 35 (Utah 2010). “Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-205.5 (5b)(a) (Supp.”
State v. Campos, 2013 UT App 213 (Utah Ct. App. 2013). “See Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-205.5 (LexisNexis 2012); State v.”
State v. Sanchez, 2016 UT App 189 (Utah Ct. App. 2016). “‛ Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-205.5 (1) (LexisNexis 2012).”
State v. Sanchez, 2018 UT 31 (Utah 2018). “Utah Code § 76-5-205.5. Previously, we have only discussed this prong in the objective setting, recognizing extreme emotional distress exists " when the average reasonable person under that stress would have an extreme emotional reaction to it.”
State v. Featherhat, 2011 UT App 154 (Utah Ct. App. 2011). “5, see Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-205.5 (Supp.2010). 113 Featherbat's first two jury instruction arguments were not preserved for appeal, as Featherhat made no objection to the instructions in the district court.”
State v. Walker, 2010 UT App 157 (Utah Ct. App. 2010). “The only "special mitigation" defense he advanced was extreme emotional distress, a defense that is negated if the emotional distress was the result of mental illness, see Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-205.5 (3)(a) (Supp.”
State v. Scott, 2017 UT App 74 (Utah Ct. App. 2017). “But like Judge Christiansen, I urge our legislature to revise section 76-5-205.5 so that it can no longer be used to mitigate the final act of abuse perpetrated by an abusive intimate partner.”
State v. White, 2011 UT 21 (Utah 2011). “3d 476 (''The plain language of section 76-5-205.5 leaves no doubt that the [Llegislature did not intend to enact special mitigation as an affirmative defense.”
State v. Smith, 2024 UT App 82 (Utah Ct. App. 2024). “As relevant here, the defense applies only when the defendant acted “under the influence of extreme emotional distress that is predominantly caused by the victim’s highly provoking act immediately preceding the defendant’s actions.”
State v. Smith, 2019 UT App 141 (Utah Ct. App. 2019). “See Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-205.5 (5)(b)(i) (LexisNexis 2017).”
State v. Flynn, 2022 UT App 89 (Utah Ct. App. 2022). “” Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-205.5 (1)(b) (LexisNexis 2012).”
Utah Code § 76-5-205.5(1): 6 cases
State v. Lambdin, 2017 UT 46 (Utah 2017). “If a jury “finds the elements [of murder] are proven beyond a reasonable doubt” by the State, and the jury unanimously finds the elements of extreme emotional distress are “established by a preponderance of the evidence” by the defendant, the jury must reduce the verdict from…”
State v. Drej, 2010 UT 35 (Utah 2010). “Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-205.5 (5b)(a) (Supp.”
State v. Walker, 2010 UT App 157 (Utah Ct. App. 2010). “The only "special mitigation" defense he advanced was extreme emotional distress, a defense that is negated if the emotional distress was the result of mental illness, see Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-205.5 (3)(a) (Supp.”
State v. Sanchez, 2018 UT 31 (Utah 2018). “Utah Code § 76-5-205.5. Previously, we have only discussed this prong in the objective setting, recognizing extreme emotional distress exists " when the average reasonable person under that stress would have an extreme emotional reaction to it.”
State v. Featherhat, 2011 UT App 154 (Utah Ct. App. 2011). “5, see Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-205.5 (Supp.2010). 113 Featherbat's first two jury instruction arguments were not preserved for appeal, as Featherhat made no objection to the instructions in the district court.”
Utah Code § 76-5-205.5(1)(a): 1 case
State v. Drej, 2010 UT 35 (Utah 2010). “Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-205.5 (5b)(a) (Supp.”
Utah Code § 76-5-205.5(1)(a)(i): 1 case
State v. Smith, 2024 UT App 82 (Utah Ct. App. 2024). “As relevant here, the defense applies only when the defendant acted “under the influence of extreme emotional distress that is predominantly caused by the victim’s highly provoking act immediately preceding the defendant’s actions.”
Utah Code § 76-5-205.5(1)(a)(i)(A): 1 case
State v. Smith, 2024 UT App 82 (Utah Ct. App. 2024). “As relevant here, the defense applies only when the defendant acted “under the influence of extreme emotional distress that is predominantly caused by the victim’s highly provoking act immediately preceding the defendant’s actions.”
Utah Code § 76-5-205.5(1)(a)(i)(B): 1 case
State v. Smith, 2024 UT App 82 (Utah Ct. App. 2024). “As relevant here, the defense applies only when the defendant acted “under the influence of extreme emotional distress that is predominantly caused by the victim’s highly provoking act immediately preceding the defendant’s actions.”
Utah Code § 76-5-205.5(1)(a)(ii): 2 cases
State v. Walker, 2010 UT App 157 (Utah Ct. App. 2010). “The only "special mitigation" defense he advanced was extreme emotional distress, a defense that is negated if the emotional distress was the result of mental illness, see Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-205.5 (3)(a) (Supp.”
State v. Hernandez, 2024 UT App 71 (Utah Ct. App. 2024).
Utah Code § 76-5-205.5(1)(b): 3 cases
State v. Lambdin, 2017 UT 46 (Utah 2017). “If a jury “finds the elements [of murder] are proven beyond a reasonable doubt” by the State, and the jury unanimously finds the elements of extreme emotional distress are “established by a preponderance of the evidence” by the defendant, the jury must reduce the verdict from…”
State v. Walker, 2010 UT App 157 (Utah Ct. App. 2010). “The only "special mitigation" defense he advanced was extreme emotional distress, a defense that is negated if the emotional distress was the result of mental illness, see Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-205.5 (3)(a) (Supp.”
State v. White, 2011 UT 21 (Utah 2011). “3d 476 (''The plain language of section 76-5-205.5 leaves no doubt that the [Llegislature did not intend to enact special mitigation as an affirmative defense.”
Utah Code § 76-5-205.5(2): 2 cases
State v. Walker, 2010 UT App 157 (Utah Ct. App. 2010). “The only "special mitigation" defense he advanced was extreme emotional distress, a defense that is negated if the emotional distress was the result of mental illness, see Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-205.5 (3)(a) (Supp.”
Gray v. State, 2017 UT App 93 (Utah Ct. App. 2017).
Utah Code § 76-5-205.5(2)(a): 1 case
State v. Smith, 2024 UT App 82 (Utah Ct. App. 2024). “As relevant here, the defense applies only when the defendant acted “under the influence of extreme emotional distress that is predominantly caused by the victim’s highly provoking act immediately preceding the defendant’s actions.”
Utah Code § 76-5-205.5(2)(b): 1 case
State v. Smith, 2024 UT App 82 (Utah Ct. App. 2024). “As relevant here, the defense applies only when the defendant acted “under the influence of extreme emotional distress that is predominantly caused by the victim’s highly provoking act immediately preceding the defendant’s actions.”
Utah Code § 76-5-205.5(3): 2 cases
State v. Lambdin, 2017 UT 46 (Utah 2017). “If a jury “finds the elements [of murder] are proven beyond a reasonable doubt” by the State, and the jury unanimously finds the elements of extreme emotional distress are “established by a preponderance of the evidence” by the defendant, the jury must reduce the verdict from…”
State v. Sanchez, 2018 UT 31 (Utah 2018). “Utah Code § 76-5-205.5. Previously, we have only discussed this prong in the objective setting, recognizing extreme emotional distress exists " when the average reasonable person under that stress would have an extreme emotional reaction to it.”
Utah Code § 76-5-205.5(3)(a): 1 case
State v. Sanchez, 2018 UT 31 (Utah 2018). “Utah Code § 76-5-205.5. Previously, we have only discussed this prong in the objective setting, recognizing extreme emotional distress exists " when the average reasonable person under that stress would have an extreme emotional reaction to it.”
Utah Code § 76-5-205.5(3)(b): 2 cases
State v. Sanchez, 2018 UT 31 (Utah 2018). “Utah Code § 76-5-205.5. Previously, we have only discussed this prong in the objective setting, recognizing extreme emotional distress exists " when the average reasonable person under that stress would have an extreme emotional reaction to it.”
State v. Scott, 2022 UT App 81 (Utah Ct. App. 2022).
Utah Code § 76-5-205.5(4): 3 cases
State v. Lambdin, 2017 UT 46 (Utah 2017). “If a jury “finds the elements [of murder] are proven beyond a reasonable doubt” by the State, and the jury unanimously finds the elements of extreme emotional distress are “established by a preponderance of the evidence” by the defendant, the jury must reduce the verdict from…”
State v. Sanchez, 2016 UT App 189 (Utah Ct. App. 2016). “‛ Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-205.5 (1) (LexisNexis 2012).”
State v. Sanchez, 2018 UT 31 (Utah 2018). “Utah Code § 76-5-205.5. Previously, we have only discussed this prong in the objective setting, recognizing extreme emotional distress exists " when the average reasonable person under that stress would have an extreme emotional reaction to it.”
Utah Code § 76-5-205.5(5): 1 case
State v. Lambdin, 2017 UT 46 (Utah 2017). “If a jury “finds the elements [of murder] are proven beyond a reasonable doubt” by the State, and the jury unanimously finds the elements of extreme emotional distress are “established by a preponderance of the evidence” by the defendant, the jury must reduce the verdict from…”
Utah Code § 76-5-205.5(5)(a): 6 cases
State v. Campos, 2013 UT App 213 (Utah Ct. App. 2013). “See Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-205.5 (LexisNexis 2012); State v.”
State v. Lambdin, 2017 UT 46 (Utah 2017). “If a jury “finds the elements [of murder] are proven beyond a reasonable doubt” by the State, and the jury unanimously finds the elements of extreme emotional distress are “established by a preponderance of the evidence” by the defendant, the jury must reduce the verdict from…”
State v. Sanchez, 2018 UT 31 (Utah 2018). “Utah Code § 76-5-205.5. Previously, we have only discussed this prong in the objective setting, recognizing extreme emotional distress exists " when the average reasonable person under that stress would have an extreme emotional reaction to it.”
State v. Flynn, 2022 UT App 89 (Utah Ct. App. 2022). “” Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-205.5 (1)(b) (LexisNexis 2012).”
Gray v. State, 2017 UT App 93 (Utah Ct. App. 2017).
Utah Code § 76-5-205.5(5)(b): 2 cases
State v. Lambdin, 2017 UT 46 (Utah 2017). “If a jury “finds the elements [of murder] are proven beyond a reasonable doubt” by the State, and the jury unanimously finds the elements of extreme emotional distress are “established by a preponderance of the evidence” by the defendant, the jury must reduce the verdict from…”
State v. Drej, 2010 UT 35 (Utah 2010). “Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-205.5 (5b)(a) (Supp.”
Utah Code § 76-5-205.5(5)(b)(iii): 1 case
State v. Flynn, 2022 UT App 89 (Utah Ct. App. 2022). “” Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-205.5 (1)(b) (LexisNexis 2012).”
Utah Code § 76-5-205.5(5)(b)(iv): 1 case
State v. Campos, 2013 UT App 213 (Utah Ct. App. 2013). “See Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-205.5 (LexisNexis 2012); State v.”
Utah Code § 76-5-205.5(6): 1 case
State v. Campos, 2013 UT App 213 (Utah Ct. App. 2013). “See Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-205.5 (LexisNexis 2012); State v.”
Utah Code § 76-5-205.5(6)(a): 1 case
State v. Sanchez, 2016 UT App 189 (Utah Ct. App. 2016). “‛ Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-205.5 (1) (LexisNexis 2012).”
Utah Code § 76-5-205.5(6)(d): 2 cases
State v. Campos, 2013 UT App 213 (Utah Ct. App. 2013). “See Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-205.5 (LexisNexis 2012); State v.”
State v. Scott, 2022 UT App 81 (Utah Ct. App. 2022).
Utah Code § 76-5-205.5(8): 1 case
State v. Walker, 2010 UT App 157 (Utah Ct. App. 2010). “The only "special mitigation" defense he advanced was extreme emotional distress, a defense that is negated if the emotional distress was the result of mental illness, see Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-205.5 (3)(a) (Supp.”
Utah Code § 76-5-205.5(l)(a)(i): 1 case
Gray v. State, 2017 UT App 93 (Utah Ct. App. 2017).
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.