Defenses to Criminal Responsibility

Utah Code tit. 76, ch. 76-2, pt. 76-2-P3

in effect

Utah Code § 76-2-301 Person under 14 years old not criminally responsible.

76-2-301. Person under 14 years old not criminally responsible. A person is not criminally responsible for conduct performed before the person reaches 14 years old. This section shall in no way limit the jurisdiction of or proceedings before the juvenile courts of this state. Amended by Chapter 302, 2025 General Session

Utah Code § 76-2-302 Compulsion.

76-2-302. Compulsion. (1) A person is not guilty of an offense when the person engaged in the proscribed conduct because the person was coerced to do so by the use or threatened imminent use of unlawful physical force upon the person or a third person, which force or threatened force a person of reasonable firmness in that situation would not have resisted. (2) The defense of compulsion provided by this section shall be unavailable to a person who intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly places himself or herself in a situation in which it is probable that the person will be subjected to duress. (3) A married woman is not entitled, by reason of the presence of her husband, to any presumption of compulsion or to any defense of compulsion except as in Subsection (1) provided. Amended by Chapter 302, 2025 General Session

Utah Code § 76-2-303 Entrapment.

76-2-303. Entrapment. (1) It is a defense that the actor was entrapped into committing the offense. Entrapment occurs when a peace officer or a person directed by or acting in cooperation with the officer induces the commission of an offense in order to obtain evidence of the commission for prosecution by methods creating a substantial risk that the offense would be committed by one not otherwise ready to commit it. Conduct merely affording a person an opportunity to commit an offense does not constitute entrapment. (2) The defense of entrapment shall be unavailable when causing or threatening bodily injury is an element of the offense charged and the prosecution is based on conduct causing or threatening the injury to a person other than the person perpetrating the entrapment. (3) The defense provided by this section is available even though the actor denies commission of the conduct charged to constitute the offense. (4) Upon written motion of the defendant, the court shall hear evidence on the issue and shall determine as a matter of fact and law whether the defendant was entrapped to commit the offense. Defendant's motion shall be made at least 10 days before trial except the court for good cause shown may permit a later filing. (5) Should the court determine that the defendant was entrapped, it shall dismiss the case with prejudice, but if the court determines the defendant was not entrapped, such issue may be presented by the defendant to the jury at trial. Any order by the court dismissing a case based on entrapment shall be appealable by the state. (6) In any hearing before a judge or jury where the defense of entrapment is an issue, past offenses of the defendant shall not be admitted, except that in a trial where the defendant testifies, the defendant may be asked about past convictions for felonies and any testimony given by the defendant at a hearing on entrapment may be used to impeach the defendant's testimony at trial. Amended by Chapter 302, 2025 General Session

Utah Code § 76-2-304 Ignorance or mistake of fact or law.

76-2-304. Ignorance or mistake of fact or law. (1) Unless otherwise provided, ignorance or mistake of fact which disproves the culpable mental state is a defense to any prosecution for that crime. (2) Ignorance or mistake concerning the existence or meaning of a penal law is no defense to a crime unless: (a) due to an actor's ignorance or mistake, the actor reasonably believed the actor's conduct did not constitute an offense; and (b) an actor's ignorance or mistake resulted from the actor's reasonable reliance upon: (i) an official statement of the law contained in a written order or grant of permission by an administrative agency charged by law with responsibility for interpreting the law in question; or (ii) a written interpretation of the law contained in an opinion of a court of record or made by a public servant charged by law with responsibility for interpreting the law in question. (3) Although an actor's ignorance or mistake of fact or law may constitute a defense to the offense charged, the actor may nevertheless be convicted of a lesser included offense of which the actor would be guilty if the fact or law were as the actor believed. Amended by Chapter 302, 2025 General Session

Utah Code § 76-2-304.5 Mistake as to victim's age not a defense.

76-2-304.5. Mistake as to victim's age not a defense. (1) It is not a defense to the following offenses that the actor mistakenly believed the victim to be 14 years old or older at the time of the alleged offense or was unaware of the victim's true age: (a) child kidnapping, Section 76-5-301.1; (b) rape of a child, Section 76-5-402.1; (c) object rape of a child, Section 76-5-402.3; (d) sodomy on a child, Section 76-5-403.1; (e) sexual abuse of a child, Section 76-5-404.1; (f) aggravated sexual abuse of a child, Section 76-5-404.3; (g) unlawful kissing of a child, Section 76-5-416.2; or (h) an attempt to commit an offense listed in Subsections (1)(a) through (1)(g). (2) It is not a defense to the following offenses that the actor mistakenly believed the victim to be 16 years old or older at the time of the alleged offense or was unaware of the victim's true age: (a) unlawful sexual activity with a minor, Section 76-5-401; (b) sexual abuse of a minor, Section 76-5-401.1; or (c) an attempt to commit an offense listed in Subsection (2)(a) or (2)(b). (3) It is not a defense to the following offenses that the actor mistakenly believed the victim to be 18 years old or older at the time of the alleged offense or was unaware of the victim's true age: (a) human trafficking of a child for labor, Section 76-5-308.5; (b) human trafficking of a child for commercial sexual exploitation, Section 76-5-308.6; (c) aggravated human trafficking, Section 76-5-310; (d) aggravated human smuggling, Section 76-5-317; (e) unlawful sexual conduct with a minor, Subsection 76-5-401.2(2)(a)(ii); (f) patronizing a prostituted individual who is a child, Section 76-5d-204; (g) aggravated exploitation of prostitution, Section 76-5d-208; or (h) sexual solicitation by an actor offering compensation to a child in exchange for sexual activity, Section 76-5d-211. Amended by Chapter 247, 2026 General Session

Utah Code § 76-2-305 Mental condition -- Use as a defense -- Influence of alcohol or other substance voluntarily consumed.

76-2-305. Mental condition -- Use as a defense -- Influence of alcohol or other substance voluntarily consumed. (1) As used in this section: (a) (i) "Mental condition" means a mental illness or a mental disability that substantially impairs an individual's mental, emotional, or behavioral functioning. (ii) "Mental condition" does not include a mental abnormality that is manifested solely by repeated criminal conduct, anti-social behavior, or a substance use disorder. (b) "Mental disability" means an intellectual disability or a neurodevelopmental disorder as those terms are defined in the current edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders published by the American Psychiatric Association. (c) "Mental illness" means the following mental disorders as described in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders published by the American Psychiatric Association: (i) schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorders; (ii) bipolar I disorder; (iii) post-traumatic stress disorder; or (iv) other serious mental health conditions with psychotic features. (2) (a) It is a defense to a prosecution under any statute or ordinance that the defendant, as a result of a mental condition, lacked the mental state required as an element of the offense charged. (b) A mental condition is not otherwise a defense, but may be evidence in mitigation of the penalty in a capital felony under Section 76-3-207 and may be evidence of special mitigation reducing the level of a criminal homicide or attempted criminal homicide offense under Section 76-5-205.5. (3) The defense defined in this section includes the defenses known as "insanity" and "diminished mental capacity." (4) A person who asserts a defense of insanity or diminished mental capacity, and who is under the influence of voluntarily consumed, injected, or ingested alcohol, controlled substances, or volatile substances at the time of the alleged offense is not excused from criminal responsibility on the basis of a mental condition if the alcohol or substance caused, triggered, or substantially contributed to the mental condition. Amended by Chapter 177, 2024 General Session

Utah Code § 76-2-306 Voluntary intoxication.

76-2-306. Voluntary intoxication. (1) Voluntary intoxication is not a defense to a criminal charge unless such intoxication negates the existence of the mental state which is an element of the offense. If recklessness or criminal negligence establishes an element of an offense and the actor is unaware of the risk because of voluntary intoxication, his unawareness is immaterial in a prosecution for that offense. (2) Voluntary intoxication is not a defense to sexual offenses, as described in Title 76, Chapter 5, Part 4, Sexual Offenses, other than Section 76-5-417, 76-5-418, 76-5-419, or 76-5-420. Amended by Chapter 173, 2025 General Session

Utah Code § 76-2-307 Voluntary termination of efforts prior to offense.

76-2-307. Voluntary termination of efforts prior to offense. It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution in which an actor's criminal responsibility arises from the actor's own conduct or from being a party to an offense under Section 76-2-202 that prior to the commission of the offense, the actor voluntarily terminated the actor's effort to promote or facilitate its commission and either: (1) gave timely warning to the proper law enforcement authorities or the intended victim; or (2) wholly deprives the actor's prior efforts of effectiveness in the commission. Amended by Chapter 302, 2025 General Session

Utah Code § 76-2-308 Affirmative defenses.

76-2-308. Affirmative defenses. Defenses enumerated in this part constitute affirmative defenses. Enacted by Chapter 196, 1973 General Session

Utah Code § 76-2-309 Justified use of force.

76-2-309. Justified use of force. (1) An individual who uses or threatens to use force as permitted in Section 76-2-402, 76-2-404, 76-2-405, 76-2-406, 76-2-407, or 76-2-408 is justified in that conduct. (2) The pretrial justification hearing process described in Subsections (3)(a) and (b) does not apply if: (a) (i) the individual against whom force was used or threatened is a law enforcement officer, as defined in Section 53-13-103; (ii) the officer was acting lawfully in the performance of the officer's official duties; and (iii) (A) the officer was identified as an officer by the officer in accordance with applicable law; or (B) the individual using or threatening to use force knew or reasonably should have known that the officer was a law enforcement officer; or (b) the charge filed against the defendant for which the defendant seeks a pretrial justification hearing is an infraction, a class B or C misdemeanor, or a domestic violence offense as defined in Section 77-36-1. (3) (a) Upon motion of the defendant filed in accordance with Rule 12 of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure, the court shall hear evidence on the issue of justification under this section and shall determine as a matter of fact and law whether the defendant was justified in the use or threatened use of force. (b) At the pretrial justification hearing, after the defendant makes a prima facie claim of justification, the state has the burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant's use or threatened use of force was not justified. (c) (i) If the court determines that the state has not met the state's burden described in Subsection (3)(b), the court shall dismiss the charge with prejudice. (ii) The state may appeal a court's order dismissing a charge under Subsection (3)(c)(i) in accordance with Section 77-18a-1. (iii) If a court determines after the pretrial justification hearing that the state has met the state's burden described in Subsection (3)(b), the issue of justification may be raised by the defendant to the jury at trial and, if raised by the defendant, the state shall have the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's use or threatened use of force was not justified. (iv) At trial, a court's determination that the state met the state's burden under Subsection (3)(c)(iii) is not admissible and may not be referenced by the prosecution. Enacted by Chapter 147, 2021 General Session

Source: Utah Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel (le.utah.gov)URL: https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title76/Chapter2/76-2-P3.html?v=C76-2-P3_1800010118000101Fetched: 10/26/2026