State v. Smith, 550 P.3d 1030

Steven Smith shot and killed his wife, Shawntell Smith, after she calmly announced her intention to leave him and take their two youngest children.
The killing occurred after a roughly 25-minute period during which Smith left the house, withdrew $15,000 from the bank, returned, secured his firearm, and questioned his sons about the planned move.
At trial, Smith confessed to the murder, and the evidence showed he acted deliberately, firing seven shots into Shawntell's back as she stood in the kitchen.
Smith requested a jury instruction allowing for a mitigation defense based on Extreme Emotional Distress (EED), which would have permitted a conviction of manslaughter instead of murder.
Days before trial, Smith also sought a continuance to obtain an expert witness to testify about EED, but the trial court denied both the EED instruction and the continuance.

Issue	Appellant's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Denial of EED Jury Instruction	The court erred by excluding an EED instruction; Smith's reaction was due to extreme emotional distress.	EED inapplicable: No "highly provoking act" by the victim; evidence did not meet statutory requirements.	Affirmed: No "highly provoking act" immediately preceding the shooting; EED instruction not warranted.
Denial of Motion for Continuance/Expert	The court erred by denying a continuance to allow time for an EED expert witness.	Expert testimony not required under statute; motion was last-minute and lacked necessary specifics.	Affirmed: Motion was late, nonspecific, and expert testimony was not material to excluded defense.

State v. Samples, 521 P.3d 526 (Utah 2022) (review facts in light most favorable to jury’s verdict)
State v. Rivera, 440 P.3d 694 (Utah 2019) (affirmative defense instruction only if reasonable basis in evidence)
Mackin v. State, 387 P.3d 986 (Utah 2016) (requirements for continuance based on absent witness)
Miller v. Utah Dep’t of Transp., 285 P.3d 1208 (Utah 2012) (standard for reviewing refusal to give jury instructions)