Voluntary Manslaughter Flashcards
Elements of voluntary manslaughter
- Manslaughter commited upon a sudden quarrel or in the heat of passion
- Reasonale provocation - OBJ
- D was in fact provoked - SUBJ
- Reasonable man would not have cooled off between provocation and fatal blow - OBJ
- D did not in fact cool off - SUBJ
GF rejected D
D got mad and shot GF
- State v. Nevares
- Sudden anger or heat of passion is not enough to reduce charge from murder to manslaughter
- Requires adequate provocation - would provoke a reasonable man to kill
- Mere insults and rejection arent enough for provocation
D had head injury that made him peculiarly susceptible to emotional stress or excitation
- State v. Nevarez
- Adequate provocation for voluntary manslaughter is judged by a reasonable person standard
- D’s particular state of mind, short of insanity but making him more prone to react to emotional stress or anger, does not change the rule
- “Different degrees of mental ability in prisoners who are sane cannot be taken into account for reducing a homicide to manslaughter”
Intoxication as a defense to voluntary manslaughter
- State v. Cooley
- Intoxication is only relevant to determining premeditation for first degree murder
- It does not create adequate provocation for a voluntary manslaughter charge - not applicable for objective test
Victim insults and argues with D before D kills victim
- State v. Nevarez
- State v. Castro
- Words alone, however insulting, will not furnish the adequate provocation required to reduce a killing to voluntary manslaughter
After arguing over the phone, D leaves to purchase gun, walks around calmly, returns to home of victim and shoots her so he can stop her from dancing - Charged with VM. On appeal it is concluded that:
- State v. Castro
- Not enough provocation because of the call - mere words of threat arent enough.
- D had sufficient time to cool off
- Judged by reasonable person standard - if a reasonable person would have cooled off in that time, it is not voluntary manslaughter
- Requires a sudden quarrel or heat of passion at the time of the killing
- Couldnt be retried - so he walks on killing because 1 and 2 didnt occur.
Prosecutor doesnt have to prove both VM and Intent to kill because he would be arguing against himself.
- People v. Rios
- People v. Barton
Victim drunkinly reveals fact of boyfriend to husband; talks about trips, sex, phone bill.
- Sells v. State
- Distinguishes between “words alone, however insulting…” and informational words
- Informational words that constitute the sudden disclosure of an event may be the equivalent of the event presently occuring and be adequate provocation
- Disclosure of an event must be an event recognized by the law as adequate
Racist insults as provocation
- Gonzales v. State
- No leniency on reasonable person standard for voluntary manslaughter - designed to remove different applications of manslaughter based on race, sex etc.
- Same standard applied for racist remarks to a person of that race
Homosexual advances towards D who was victim of sexual abuse
- Commonwealth v. Halbert
- History of sexual abuse has no bearing on the objective, reasonable person standard
- Homosexual advance was not one which would provoke a reasonable man
Road rage incident, D and victim pulled into a parking lot, argued and D killed victim
- Canipe v. Commonwealth
- Road rage spurred by each other’s aggressive driving does not render a reasonable person deaf to the voice of reason
- Not adequate provocation for VM
Definition of sufficient provocation
“Any action, conduct, or circumstances which arouse anger, rage, fear, sudden resentment, terror or other extreme emotions”
Must engender these feelings in a person of average disposition that would negate his ability to reason and result in a temporary loss of self - control (objective standard)
D’s wife told D about sexual abuse by stepfather that occured ten years ago
D went to talk to stepfather, took gun with his because he knew stepfather had guns
Mother admitted she knew of the abuse. Stepfather started to leave the room and D shot him.
State alleged D shot because he thought stepfather was getting a gun. D argued he shot because provoked.
- State v. Munoz
- Victim must be the source of the provocation
- But makes a distinction between the actual provocation and the disclosure of the provocation
- Abuse was the provocation
- Disclosure of that abuse - “sudden disclosure of an event may be the equivalent of the event presently occuring”
- D cannot pose a threat to the victim and then rely on the victim’s response as provocation.
- Here, Court found D was first provoked by alleged abuse
People v. McCoy - accomplice/aiding and abetting stuff - add in class wtf!
- An accomplice can be convicted of a more serious crime than the principal actor
- Principal actor may have been provoked and get charged with VM
- Accomplice may have acted deliberately and premediated the killing and get charged with first degree murder
- Depends on the mens rea of the actors
- Accomplice is not limited to the charges given to the principal actor
