251 P.2d 820 (Utah 2011)
Brenda White and Jon White were married for eleven years.1 Both parties admit the marriage was difficult and that talk of divorce was common. According to Ms. White, Jon was addicted to pornography and suggested that Ms. White participate in sexual threesomes with him and his co-worker. Ms. White further alleges that during the marriage Jon was having an affair with another woman. These behaviors caused Ms. White to experience feelings of great anxiety, anger, and agitation, and they eventually led to the couple's divorce.2
Following the divorce, Ms. White's stress increased. She struggled financially to support her two daughters and, as a result of having to work more hours, saw less of her children. Throughout this period of time, Ms. White claims that Jon began to withdraw from the children and failed to pay child support. Jon canceled Ms. White's medical insurance, which left her unable to pay for medication she needed to treat her anxiety and depression.3 As part of the divorce settlement, Ms. White was awarded the couple's house. Because of her financial troubles, Ms. White attempted to refinance the home, but learned that she would not be able to complete the refinancing process without Jon's assistance and signatures.4
On April 26, 2006, Brenda went to Jon's office to speak to him about refinancing the house. Jon spoke to the mortgage broker by phone, but told Brenda the issue would ultimately need to be resolved at a later time. Following the call, Jon walked out to the parking lot with Brenda. Brenda asked Jon to sign a quit-claim deed to the marital home, but Jon refused to do so until Brenda took his name off the two mortgages encumbering the property. The conversation escalated in intensity and Brenda became extremely upset. She climbed into her vehicle and turned on music with the lyrics, "I want to kill you; I want to blow you away." During the song, she joined her hands together to mimic a gun and pointed her fingers at Jon. She then told Jon he was a "parasite" and that she was going to wipe him off the earth. Jon went back into the office, and Brenda drove away.5
That same afternoon, around 4:30 p.m., Ms. White returned to Jon's workplace to again discuss refinancing the home. When she arrived, Jon was leaving the office building. Brenda observed him talking on a cell phone — a cell phone that she claims Jon had repeatedly denied owning. Ms. White testified that at that moment she was overcome with all the anger, agitation, loss, grief, and disappointment she had experienced throughout her relationship and the divorce. Ms. White claims at that point, her emotions took over and she lost all self-control.6 As she watched Jon talk on his cell phone, Ms. White drove her vehicle toward him, accelerating quickly. When Jon heard tires screeching, he jumped between two parked cars, over a small cement wall, and back into his office building. Ms. White continued to follow Jon, driving her car through the building's double glass doors. After entering the lobby with her car, Ms. White struck Jon twice with her vehicle. Jon flew over the hood of the car and landed on the ground, injuring his left leg.7
Brenda was arrested and charged with attempted murder and criminal mischief. In preparation for trial, she filed a motion in limine requesting the court to instruct the jury on the defense of extreme emotional distress found in Utah Code section 76-5-203.8 The State opposed her motion. It proffered evidence from Mr. White's sister, who testified that Brenda called her shortly after the events and told her that she thought she had just killed Jon. Mr. White's sister testified that Brenda's tone was "matter-of-fact" and "unemotional." The State also introduced the statement of the officer who responded to the scene just after the events occurred. The officer testified that when he approached Ms. White, she was still in her car. He observed that she was not crying and did not appear upset.9 After the trial court heard argument on the issue, it denied Ms. White's pretrial motion and declined to give the affirmative defense jury instruction. Ms. White filed a petition for an interlocutory appeal to challenge the trial court's decision to deny her motion. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's decision. Ms. White filed a petition for certiorari, which we granted.10111213
Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that Ms. White was required to demonstrate a highly provocative and contemporaneous triggering event as a prerequisite to an affirmative defense of extreme emotional distress?14
When a criminal defendant requests a jury instruction regarding a particular affirmative defense, the court is obligated to give the instruction if evidence has been presented that provides any reasonable basis upon which a jury could conclude that the affirmative defense applies to the defendant.15 Utah Code section 76-5-203(4)(a)(i) provides that it is an affirmative defense to a charge of attempted murder if the defendant was acting under the influence of extreme emotional distress for which there was a reasonable explanation or excuse.16 A person acts under the influence of extreme emotional distress when he is exposed to extremely unusual and overwhelming stress that would cause the average reasonable person under the same circumstances to experience a loss of self-control and be overborne by intense feelings such as passion, anger, distress, grief, excessive agitation, or other similar emotions.17 The reasonableness of an explanation or excuse shall be determined from the viewpoint of a reasonable person under the then existing circumstances.18 An action influenced by extreme emotional distress need not be an immediate trigger for criminal conduct.19 A significant mental trauma may affect a defendant's mind for a substantial period of time, simmering in the unknowing subconscious and then coming to the fore.20
Yes. The court of appeals erred in holding that Ms. White was required to demonstrate a highly provocative and contemporaneous triggering event as a prerequisite to an affirmative defense of extreme emotional distress.21 The court of appeals improperly linked the definition of extreme emotional distress to an additional contemporaneous requirement not present in the statute or case law when it stated that the only contemporaneous provocative event was Jon's use of a cell phone and that marital difficulties, financial stress, parenting issues, and other difficulties with divorce lacked the requisite contemporaneous relationship to her loss of self-control.22 The facts establish that Ms. White experienced a series of stressors beginning during the eleven-year marriage from Jon's addiction to pornography, suggestions of sexual threesomes, and affair, which caused anxiety, anger, and agitation leading to divorce.
After the divorce Ms. White struggled financially to support her two daughters, worked longer hours, saw less of her children, received no child support, and lost medical insurance needed for anxiety and depression medication while needing Jon's signature to refinance the awarded house. On April 26, 2006, the parking lot refusal to sign the quit-claim deed escalated the situation and four hours later the cell phone observation triggered the loss of self-control during which Ms. White drove into the building and struck Jon. These facts demonstrate a building emotional reaction. The reaction must be evaluated in its broader context of past experiences. This approach does not require a highly provocative contemporaneous triggering event. It is consistent with the principle that an external trigger is necessary but need not be contemporaneous with the loss of self-control.23
The court of appeals erred when it required Ms. White to demonstrate a highly provocative and contemporaneous triggering event to obtain a jury instruction on the extreme emotional distress defense.24 This standard imposes too high of a burden on defendants and is an improper retreat into rejected heat of passion jurisprudence.25 The court of appeals correctly determined that the reasonable explanation or excuse must be evaluated from the viewpoint of a reasonable person under the then-existing circumstances.26 The decision of the court of appeals is reversed. The case is remanded to the trial court to reevaluate whether Ms. White has demonstrated any reasonable basis upon which the jury should be allowed to consider the extreme emotional distress defense at trial.27