State v. Lambdin

Citation424 P.3d 117
Decision Date11 August 2017
Docket NumberNo. 20150752,20150752
Parties STATE of Utah, Respondent, v. Dennis Wayne LAMBDIN, Petitioner.
CourtSupreme Court of Utah

424 P.3d 117

STATE of Utah, Respondent,
Dennis Wayne LAMBDIN, Petitioner.

No. 20150752

Supreme Court of Utah.

Filed August 11, 2017

Sean D. Reyes, Att'y Gen., Karen A. Klucznik, Asst. Solic. Gen., Salt Lake City, for respondent.

McCaye Christianson, Alexandra S. McCallum, Salt Lake City, for petitioner.

Justice Durham authored the opinion of the Court, in which Associate Chief Justice Lee and Judge Connors joined.

Chief Justice Durrant authored a dissenting opinion in which Justice Himonas joined.

Having recused himself, Justice Pearce does not participate herein; District Court Judge David Connors sat.

On Certiorari to the Utah Court of Appeals

Justice Durham, opinion of the Court:

424 P.3d 119


¶ 1 Dennis Lambdin was married for approximately nine years before brutally killing his wife. While he admitted to the killing, he sought to reduce the conviction from murder to manslaughter by establishing special mitigation through extreme emotional distress. At trial the jury convicted him of murder, rejecting his arguments for special mitigation. Mr. Lambdin appealed his conviction of murder to the court of appeals, arguing that the district court's jury instructions concerning extreme emotional distress were in error. The court of appeals affirmed the conviction. We granted certiorari to review the court of appeals' decision, and affirm.


¶ 2 Mr. Lambdin married the victim in 2000. Throughout the marriage, the victim had a drinking and gambling problem, which caused distress to Mr. Lambdin. In June 2009, she asked Mr. Lambdin for a divorce. Later, Mr. Lambdin found romantic messages on the victim's cell phone from another man, and around the same time, the victim informed Mr. Lambdin that she was pregnant with another man's child. Mr. Lambdin told a co-worker of his wife's infidelity and his distress, and the co-worker requested that the police conduct a welfare check at Mr. Lambdin's home because she was concerned for his safety. The police visited Mr. Lambdin and found that he had a very calm demeanor despite having just discussed the pregnancy with the victim. He told police that the affair "doesn't really matter. It's over. I'm past it now. It is time to move on."

¶ 3 The couple continued to discuss divorce off and on for roughly two months, with Mr. Lambdin trying to convince the victim to stay in the marriage. On the evening of August 16, 2009, Mr. Lambdin and the victim again argued over whether they should divorce. After the argument, Mr. Lambdin made the victim coffee, and she then left their home to work a night shift at her job.

¶ 4 Mr. Lambdin stayed up most of the night. Around midnight, Mr. Lambdin wrote two letters. The first letter, written in the past tense, explained that he had killed the victim and committed suicide. This letter also gave explanations for why he planned to do it, including the statement that, "she deserves what she got and I won't be around to suffer anymore." The second letter, apparently written to a neighbor, said "I couldn't take this shit any longer. I had to do this and I'm glad I did. It serves her right for all she has done to me."

¶ 5 Mr. Lambdin printed a copy of these two letters and left them on his computer desk. About seven hours after the letters were written, the victim came home from work. Mr. Lambdin met her in the kitchen and began discussing divorce again. He said, "do we really have to go through all of this stuff" and "lose everything that we got." The victim responded by telling him "you're crazy," and that he needed to move out. At this point, Mr. Lambdin told police that he "just lost it."1 He explained to the police that, "[a]ll I wanted was some resolve with her, to get back what I've given her for the last 9 ½ years. The love and the affection. And she just talked to me like I was a stranger. A piece of shit. Insults me."

¶ 6 Mr. Lambdin punched the victim "about four or five times," and then threw her to the floor. Then he grabbed the biggest kitchen knife he could find and began stabbing her. After he stabbed her the first time, the victim screamed, "okay!" But Mr. Lambdin responded "it's too late," and you "get what you deserve." He continued to stab the victim at least fifteen times in the back and neck while she was screaming. After repeatedly stabbing the victim, he noticed that she was still moving. Mr. Lambdin told police that he "didn't want to stab her anymore" and that he "didn't want her to suffer." So, Mr. Lambdin grabbed a "big decorated ball" and "smashed her in the back of the head

424 P.3d 120

with it three times," until she stopped moving. The victim died in the attack.

¶ 7 According to Mr. Lambdin's statement to the police, he went out onto his deck and smoked a cigarette after killing the victim. He then went to Home Depot to buy some rope with which to hang himself. He came home and tied the rope to an attic beam and began drinking heavily "to get the balls to" commit suicide. While drinking, he messaged a friend telling her what he had done. The friend called the police, who arrived at the scene shortly thereafter.

¶ 8 During the attack, Mr. Lambdin had cut his hand on the kitchen knife, and EMTs transported him to a hospital for treatment. On the way to the hospital, Mr. Lambdin informed the EMTs that "he had stabbed his wife" and "that when she continued to move he grabbed a glass globe and bashed her head." He told the EMTs multiple times that "the bitch got what she deserved." Mr. Lambdin continued to make similar comments to hospital staff. He made the comment that "he couldn't take it anymore," and that he had killed his wife. When asked how he had cut his hand, he "just laughed about it and said, ‘I killed that woman. I stabbed her. She got what she deserved.’ "

¶ 9 The police officer who responded to the incident testified that, immediately after he arrived on the scene, during the ambulance ride, and at the hospital, Mr. Lambdin displayed a wide spectrum of emotions, from laughing about the attack and seeming very excited to becoming very angry. The officer testified that Mr. Lambdin seemed to have an, "oh, my gosh ... what did I just do," attitude, but that he did not cry.

¶ 10 The State charged Mr. Lambdin with murder. Mr. Lambdin sought to reduce the level of his offense to manslaughter by proving special mitigation by extreme emotional distress. The district court proposed its own jury instructions; Mr. Lambdin objected to the instructions concerning special mitigation, but the court overruled his objections. The jury convicted Mr. Lambdin of murder, unanimously finding that he had failed to establish special mitigation by extreme emotional distress. Mr. Lambdin appealed, and the court of appeals affirmed the district court's jury instructions. We granted certiorari to review the court of appeals.


¶ 11 "On certiorari, we review the decision of the court of appeals for correctness, without deference to its conclusions of law." State v. Smith , 2014 UT 33, ¶ 9, 344 P.3d 573 (citation omitted). Also, "we review a court's ruling on a proposed jury instruction for correctness." State v. Maestas , 2012 UT 46, ¶ 148, 299 P.3d 892.


¶ 12 Utah Code section 76-5-205.5 governs special mitigation in criminal homicide cases. Special mitigation allows a defendant charged with criminal homicide to reduce the level of the offense. UTAH CODE § 76-5-205.5(5). Extreme emotional distress is one category of special mitigation. Id . § 76-5-205.5(1)(b). 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 murder to manslaughter. Id . § 76-5-205.5(5)(a).

¶ 13 Extreme emotional distress is established by proving 1) the defendant "cause[d] the death of another," 2) "under the influence of extreme emotional distress," 3) "for which there is a reasonable explanation or excuse." Id. § 76-5-205.5(1). The statute provides further guidance on the second and third elements. Under the second element, extreme emotional distress does not include "a condition resulting from mental illness as defined in Section 76-2-305" or "distress that is substantially caused by the defendant's own conduct." Id . § 76-5-205.5(3). Under the third element, the "reasonableness of an explanation or excuse" for the extreme emotional distress "shall be determined from the viewpoint of a reasonable person under the then existing circumstances." Id . § 76-5-205.5(4). There is no further statutory definition or explanation of the term "extreme emotional distress."

424 P.3d 121

¶ 14 Mr. Lambdin argues that our definition of extreme emotional distress in State v. Bishop , 753 P.2d 439 (Utah 1988), overruled on other grounds by State v. Menzies , 889 P.2d 393 (Utah 1994), is dicta and that "it was error to turn that dictum into affirmative statements of the law" that were used to provide the language for the jury...

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 cases
  • State v. Heath
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Utah
    • November 21, 2019
    ...,, t []; see also State v. Lambdin , 2017 UT 46, ¶ 22, 424 P.3d 117 ("When interpreting statutes, we look to the ordinary meaning of the words, using the dictionary as our starting point.").¶68 Further, in t......
  • State v. Cegers
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Utah
    • April 4, 2019
    ...when the instructions taken as a whole fairly instruct the jury on the law applicable to the case," State v. Lambdin , 2017 UT 46, ¶ 41, 424 P.3d 117 (quotation simplified). We conclude that, taken as a whole, the jury instructions at issue here fairly represented the applicable law and acc......
  • Ross v. State, 20180187
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Utah
    • August 15, 2019
    ...subsequent action taken by the defendant." State v. Sanchez , 2018 UT 31, ¶ 47, 422 P.3d 866 (citing State v. Lambdin , 2017 UT 46, ¶ 34, 424 P.3d 117 ). Therefore, the jury is not required to find that the killing itself was reasonable to find that the defendant acted under extreme emotion......
  • State v. Badikyan
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Utah
    • January 30, 2020
    ...¶ 22, 436 P.3d 256 (quoting Rettig , 2017 UT 83, ¶ 27, 416 P.3d 520 ) (emphasis in original).13 Id.14 State v. Lambdin , 2017 UT 46, ¶ 11, 424 P.3d 117 (citation omitted).15 2017 UT 83, ¶ 44, 416 P.3d 520 ; 2017 UT 84, ¶ 26, 416 P.3d 546 ; see also State v. Johnson , 2017 UT 76, ¶ 19, 416 P......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT