State v. White

Facts

D and Jon White (H) were married for eleven years. The marriage was difficult and talk of divorce was common. D claimed H was addicted to pornography and suggested 'sexual threesomes' with him and his coworker. D further alleges that during the marriage H was having an affair with another woman. D experienced feelings of great anxiety, anger, and agitation, and they eventually led to the couple's divorce. After the divorce, D's stress increased. She struggled financially to support her two daughters.  D claims that H began to withdraw from the children and failed to pay child support. H canceled D's medical insurance, which left her unable to pay for the medication she needed to treat her anxiety and depression. D was awarded the couple's house. D attempted to refinance the home but learned that she would not be able to complete the refinancing process without H's assistance and signatures. On April 26, 2006, D went to H's office to speak to him about refinancing the house. H spoke to the mortgage broker by phone but told D the issue would ultimately need to be resolved at a later time. D asked H to sign a quit claim deed to the marital home, but H refused to do so until D took his name off the two mortgages encumbering the property. D became extremely upset. D 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 H. She then told H he was a 'parasite' and that she was going to wipe him off the earth. H went back into the office, and D drove away. D returned to the office the same day around 4:30 p.m. H was leaving the office building.  talking on a cell phone-a cell phone that she claims H had repeatedly denied owning. D became overcome with all the anger, agitation, loss, grief, and disappointment she had experienced throughout her relationship and the divorce. D claims her emotions took over and she lost all self-control. D drove her vehicle toward H, accelerating quickly. H jumped between two parked cars, over a small cement wall, and back into his office building. D followed driving her car through the building's double glass doors. After entering the lobby with her car, D struck H twice with her vehicle. H flew over the hood of the car and landed on the ground, injuring his left leg. D was arrested and charged with attempted murder and criminal mischief. D filed a motion in limine requesting the court to instruct the jury on the defense of extreme emotional distress. The court denied the request and also declined to instruct the jury on the issue. It stated: 'The extreme emotional distress defense is available only to defendants who have been subjected to stress that would cause the average reasonable person to have an extreme emotional reaction and experience a loss of self-control.' The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's decision. It held that D must show that a loss of self-control was in reaction to a highly provocative triggering event that is contemporaneous with the defendant's loss of self-control. It held that the use of a cell phone that H had previously denied possessing did not qualify. The court of appeals held that the availability of the extreme emotional distress defense must be evaluated using an objective standard and based on the expected conduct of a reasonable person under the then-existing circumstances, not the subjective point of view of D. D appealed. 

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.