State v. Utter
Citation: 479 P.2d 946 (Wash. Ct. App. 1971)
Facts
Claude Utter, a combat veteran, fatally stabbed his son after a day of heavy drinking. He had no memory of the stabbing. Utter introduced evidence that he may have acted under a “conditioned response” — an automatic, trained reaction to stimuli instilled by his military combat training — and thus without conscious awareness or volition.
Issue
Whether a defendant who acts in an automatistic or conditioned-response state, without conscious awareness, lacks the voluntary act necessary for criminal liability.
Holding
The Washington Court of Appeals held that automatism — acting without conscious control — can negate the voluntary act requirement and thus preclude criminal liability, but affirmed Utter’s conviction because the evidence failed to establish he was in an automatistic state at the time of the killing.
Rule
Criminal liability requires a voluntary act. A bodily movement that occurs without conscious control or awareness (automatism) is not a voluntary act and cannot form the basis of criminal liability.
Significance
Utter is the primary teaching case on the actus reus requirement and the distinction between voluntary and involuntary acts. It illustrates that the criminal law does not punish mere harm-causing — there must be a willed, conscious bodily movement. It also raises questions about the interaction between automatism and voluntary intoxication.