(1) As used in this section: (a) (i) "Extreme emotional distress" means an overwhelming reaction of anger, shock, or grief that: (A) causes the defendant to be incapable of reflection and restraint; and (B) would cause an objectively reasonable person to be incapable of reflection and restraint. (ii) "Extreme emotional distress" does not include: (A) a condition resulting from mental illness; or (B) distress that is substantially caused by the defendant's own conduct. (b) "Mental illness" means the same as that term is defined in Section 76-2-305.

(a) (i) "Extreme emotional distress" means an overwhelming reaction of anger, shock, or grief that: (A) causes the defendant to be incapable of reflection and restraint; and (B) would cause an objectively reasonable person to be incapable of reflection and restraint. (ii) "Extreme emotional distress" does not include: (A) a condition resulting from mental illness; or (B) distress that is substantially caused by the defendant's own conduct.

(i) "Extreme emotional distress" means an overwhelming reaction of anger, shock, or grief that: (A) causes the defendant to be incapable of reflection and restraint; and (B) would cause an objectively reasonable person to be incapable of reflection and restraint.

(A) causes the defendant to be incapable of reflection and restraint; and

(B) would cause an objectively reasonable person to be incapable of reflection and restraint.

(ii) "Extreme emotional distress" does not include: (A) a condition resulting from mental illness; or (B) distress that is substantially caused by the defendant's own conduct.

(A) a condition resulting from mental illness; or

(B) distress that is substantially caused by the defendant's own conduct.

(b) "Mental illness" means the same as that term is defined in Section 76-2-305.

(2) Special mitigation exists when a defendant causes the death of another or attempts to cause the death of another: (a) (i) under circumstances that are not legally justified, but the defendant acts under a delusion attributable to a mental illness; (ii) the nature of the delusion is such that, if the facts existed as the defendant believed them to be in the delusional state, those facts would provide a legal justification for the defendant's conduct; and (iii) the defendant's actions, in light of the delusion, are reasonable from the objective viewpoint of a reasonable person; or (b) except as provided in Subsection (4), under the influence of extreme emotional distress that is predominantly caused by the victim's highly provoking act immediately preceding the defendant's actions.

(a) (i) under circumstances that are not legally justified, but the defendant acts under a delusion attributable to a mental illness; (ii) the nature of the delusion is such that, if the facts existed as the defendant believed them to be in the delusional state, those facts would provide a legal justification for the defendant's conduct; and (iii) the defendant's actions, in light of the delusion, are reasonable from the objective viewpoint of a reasonable person; or

(i) under circumstances that are not legally justified, but the defendant acts under a delusion attributable to a mental illness;

(ii) the nature of the delusion is such that, if the facts existed as the defendant believed them to be in the delusional state, those facts would provide a legal justification for the defendant's conduct; and

(iii) the defendant's actions, in light of the delusion, are reasonable from the objective viewpoint of a reasonable person; or

(b) except as provided in Subsection (4), under the influence of extreme emotional distress that is predominantly caused by the victim's highly provoking act immediately preceding the defendant's actions.

(3) A defendant who is under the influence of voluntarily consumed, injected, or ingested alcohol, controlled substances, or volatile substances at the time of the alleged offense may not claim mitigation of the offense under Subsection (2)(a) on the basis of mental illness if the alcohol or substance causes, triggers, or substantially contributes to the defendant's mental illness.

(4) A defendant may not claim special mitigation under Subsection (2)(b) if: (a) the time period after the victim's highly provoking act and before the defendant's actions was long enough for an objectively reasonable person to have recovered from the extreme emotional distress; (b) the defendant responded to the victim's highly provoking act by inflicting serious or substantial bodily injury on the victim over a prolonged period, or by inflicting torture on the victim, regardless of whether the victim was conscious during the infliction of serious or substantial bodily injury or torture; or (c) the victim's highly provoking act, described in Subsection (2)(b), is comprised of words alone.

(a) the time period after the victim's highly provoking act and before the defendant's actions was long enough for an objectively reasonable person to have recovered from the extreme emotional distress;

(b) the defendant responded to the victim's highly provoking act by inflicting serious or substantial bodily injury on the victim over a prolonged period, or by inflicting torture on the victim, regardless of whether the victim was conscious during the infliction of serious or substantial bodily injury or torture; or

(c) the victim's highly provoking act, described in Subsection (2)(b), is comprised of words alone.

(5) (a) If the trier of fact finds that the elements of an offense described in Subsection (5)(b) are proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and also finds that the existence of special mitigation under this section is established by a preponderance of the evidence, the trier of fact shall return a verdict on the reduced charge as provided in Subsection (5)(b). (b) If under Subsection (5)(a) the offense is: (i) aggravated murder, the defendant shall instead be found guilty of murder; (ii) attempted aggravated murder, the defendant shall instead be found guilty of attempted murder; (iii) murder, the defendant shall instead be found guilty of manslaughter; or (iv) attempted murder, the defendant shall instead be found guilty of attempted manslaughter. (c) If the trier of fact finds that special mitigation is not established under this section, the trier of fact shall convict the defendant of the offense for which the prosecution proves all the elements beyond a reasonable doubt.

(a) If the trier of fact finds that the elements of an offense described in Subsection (5)(b) are proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and also finds that the existence of special mitigation under this section is established by a preponderance of the evidence, the trier of fact shall return a verdict on the reduced charge as provided in Subsection (5)(b).

(b) If under Subsection (5)(a) the offense is: (i) aggravated murder, the defendant shall instead be found guilty of murder; (ii) attempted aggravated murder, the defendant shall instead be found guilty of attempted murder; (iii) murder, the defendant shall instead be found guilty of manslaughter; or (iv) attempted murder, the defendant shall instead be found guilty of attempted manslaughter.

(i) aggravated murder, the defendant shall instead be found guilty of murder;

(ii) attempted aggravated murder, the defendant shall instead be found guilty of attempted murder;

(iii) murder, the defendant shall instead be found guilty of manslaughter; or

(iv) attempted murder, the defendant shall instead be found guilty of attempted manslaughter.

(c) If the trier of fact finds that special mitigation is not established under this section, the trier of fact shall convict the defendant of the offense for which the prosecution proves all the elements beyond a reasonable doubt.

(6) (a) If a jury is the trier of fact, a unanimous vote of the jury is required to establish the existence of the special mitigation under this section. (b) If the jury finds special mitigation by a unanimous vote, the jury shall return a verdict on the reduced charge as provided in Subsection (5). (c) If the jury finds by a unanimous vote that special mitigation is not established, or if the jury is unable to unanimously agree special mitigation is established, the jury shall convict the defendant of the greater offense for which the prosecution proves all the elements beyond a reasonable doubt.

(a) If a jury is the trier of fact, a unanimous vote of the jury is required to establish the existence of the special mitigation under this section.

(b) If the jury finds special mitigation by a unanimous vote, the jury shall return a verdict on the reduced charge as provided in Subsection (5).

(c) If the jury finds by a unanimous vote that special mitigation is not established, or if the jury is unable to unanimously agree special mitigation is established, the jury shall convict the defendant of the greater offense for which the prosecution proves all the elements beyond a reasonable doubt.

(7) (a) If the issue of special mitigation is submitted to the trier of fact, the trier of fact shall return a special verdict indicating whether the existence of special mitigation is found. (b) The trier of fact shall return the special verdict at the same time as the general verdict, to indicate the basis for the general verdict.

(a) If the issue of special mitigation is submitted to the trier of fact, the trier of fact shall return a special verdict indicating whether the existence of special mitigation is found.

(b) The trier of fact shall return the special verdict at the same time as the general verdict, to indicate the basis for the general verdict.

(8) Special mitigation under this section does not, in any case, reduce the level of an offense by more than one degree from that offense, the elements of which the evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt.