Summary
The Utah Supreme Court considers whether the trial court properly instructed the jury on imperfect self-defense manslaughter and extreme emotional distress manslaughter over the defendant's objection. The court holds that the imperfect self-defense instruction was proper because the defendant presented evidence of self-defense, but that the extreme emotional distress instruction improperly imposed an affirmative defense the defendant had not asserted. The court reverses the manslaughter conviction and remands for further proceedings.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court committed plain error by instructing the jury on extreme emotional distress manslaughter over Low's objection when Low presented no evidence supporting that affirmative defense.
- Whether the district court properly instructed the jury on imperfect self-defense manslaughter over Low's objection when Low presented evidence of perfect self-defense.
- Whether double jeopardy barred retrial for murder or manslaughter after reversal of Low's manslaughter conviction.
- Whether Low's custodial statements should be suppressed because the arresting officer's conduct constituted the functional equivalent of interrogation under Miranda.
- Whether Low's testimony from the first trial could be admitted at retrial without determining whether illegally admitted custodial statements compelled him to testify.
Holdings
- Under the Utah Criminal Code, extreme emotional distress and imperfect self-defense are affirmative defenses to murder, not lesser-included offenses of murder.
- A court may instruct on an affirmative defense over the defendant's objection only when the defendant has presented evidence supporting that defense; the prosecution may not force an affirmative defense on a defendant who has presented no evidence in support of it.
- The district court properly instructed the jury on imperfect self-defense manslaughter because Low presented evidence of perfect self-defense, which necessarily supplied a factual basis for imperfect self-defense.
- It was plain, obvious, and harmful error to instruct the jury on extreme emotional distress manslaughter over Low's objection because Low presented no evidence that he experienced extreme emotional distress.
- Double jeopardy barred retrial for murder because Low's manslaughter conviction necessarily implied an acquittal of the greater murder charge. The State could not retry Low for extreme emotional distress or imperfect self-defense manslaughter because those were affirmative defenses, not independently chargeable offenses, but it could file an amended information charging other forms of manslaughter or lesser offenses supported by the evidence.
- On the specific facts presented, the arresting officer's refusal to read Low his rights, coupled with statements reasonably likely to elicit incriminating responses, constituted the functional equivalent of interrogation; Low's custodial statements therefore should be suppressed on retrial if he requested suppression.
Key quotations
“Under the plain language of Utah's murder and manslaughter statutes, extreme emotional distress manslaughter and imperfect self-defense manslaughter are affirmative defenses to murder.” (876)
“But the prosecution is not entitled to an affirmative defense instruction if the defendant has proffered no evidence in support of that affirmative defense.” (877)
“It was therefore error for the district court to submit a jury instruction regarding extreme emotional distress, an affirmative defense that Low did not raise.” (879)
“The conviction of the lesser offense of manslaughter constitutes an implied acquittal of the greater offense of murder.” (881)
Factual background
Low was at Michael Hirschey's apartment after an evening of cocaine use, where Hirschey and others repeatedly teased, assaulted, and threatened him. After Low and Hirschey left the living room, Kevin McCall heard a pop, and Low returned stating that Hirschey was dead. Low was later arrested carrying a .357 magnum handgun and made statements to police and others about the killing. At trial, Low admitted shooting Hirschey but testified that he acted in self-defense after Hirschey pointed a gun at him and charged him.
Procedural history
Low was initially tried for murder, theft, and carrying a concealed dangerous weapon. The theft charge was dismissed, the jury convicted him of the weapons charge but could not reach a verdict on murder, and the court declared a mistrial on the murder charge. At a second trial, over Low's objection, the district court instructed the jury on extreme emotional distress and imperfect self-defense manslaughter; the jury acquitted him of first-degree murder but convicted him of manslaughter. The Utah Supreme Court accepted certification from the court of appeals, reversed the manslaughter conviction, and remanded for further proceedings.
Remand instructions
Reverse the manslaughter conviction and conduct further proceedings consistent with the opinion. The State may not retry Low for murder, extreme emotional distress manslaughter, or imperfect self-defense manslaughter, but may file an amended information charging other forms of manslaughter or lesser offenses supported by the facts. On retrial, custodial statements should be suppressed if Low requests suppression; any request to admit Low's first-trial testimony requires the State to prove that the improperly admitted custodial statements did not induce his testimony. Any flight instruction must be complete.