Heat of Passion/Manslaughter

Question 1

What was the holding in Girouard v. State?

Answer 1

Words can constitute adequate provocation if they are accompanied by conduct indicating a present intention and ability to cause the defendant bodily harm.

Question 2

What is Maryland’s Rule of Provocation (taken from Girouard)?

Answer 2

1. There must have been adequate provocation to inflame a reasonable man;
2. The killing must have been in the heat of passion;
3. It must have been a sudden heat of passion — that is, the killing must have followed the provocation before there had been a reasonable opportunity for the passion to cool;
4. There must have been a causal connection between the provocation, the passion, and the fatal act.

Question 3

What are some different ways to distinguish an unlawful killing?

Answer 3

Murder = malice vs.

manslaughter = no malice

Voluntary manslaughter is “an intentional homicide, done in a sudden heat of passion, caused by adequate provocation, before there has been a reasonable opportunity for the passion to cool.”

Question 4

What is adequate provocation?

Answer 4

Provocation (1) discovering one’s spouse in the act of sexual intercourse with another; (2) mutual combat; (3) assault and battery.

Question 5

What is reasonable provocation under the MPC?

Answer 5

Reasonableness is “determined from the viewpoint of the person in the actor’s situation under the circumstances as he believes them to be.”

Easy example: toy gun.
Not harmful, but reasonable mistake.

Question 6

What is the rule for extreme emotional disturbance (under the OTT holding)?

Answer 6

Not murder when killing is committed under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance when such disturbance is not the result of the person’s own intentional, knowing, reckless or criminally negligent act, and for which disturbance there is a reasonable explanation. The reasonableness of the explanation for the disturbance shall be determined from the standpoint of an ordinary person in the actor’s situation under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be.”

Note: there is a very fine line between taking someone’s viewpoint (reasonable under the circumstances) and accepting any subjective EED.