💕
Criminal Law • Murder
CRIMLAW#010
Legal Definition
Voluntary manslaughter is a killing that would be murder but for the existence of adequate provocation.
The "adequate provocation test" is both objective and subjective: (1) the provocation must be of a type that would arouse sudden and intense passion in the mind of an ordinary person; (2) the defendant must have been actually provoked; (3) there must not have been sufficient time for a reasonable person to cool off; and (4) the defendant must not have actually cooled off.
The "adequate provocation test" is both objective and subjective: (1) the provocation must be of a type that would arouse sudden and intense passion in the mind of an ordinary person; (2) the defendant must have been actually provoked; (3) there must not have been sufficient time for a reasonable person to cool off; and (4) the defendant must not have actually cooled off.
Plain English Explanation
Humans are emotional animals. This is important to keep in mind when assessing a potential murder because murder isn't simply the killing of another human being. It's much worse than that. It is the calculated, intentional, purposeful killing of another human being. Voluntary manslaughter is almost a murder, except that it is less worse than a murder due to some genuine "provocation," which is another fancy way to say, "The defendant only killed because they lost their cool and snapped."
To determine whether or not a defendant was adequately provoked, you must establish the following factors from the fact pattern:
(1) The action is the type of provocation that would arguably cause an ordinary person to suddenly react super crazy or snap in a fit of rage. For example, if Bob comes home from a long day of work only to find his partner in bed with another man, this could be the type of provocation that would arguably cause an ordinary person to snap and, as a result, kill someone. Again, it isn't to say they aren't a bad person for doing so — they are just not as bad as a person who would kill someone without being provoked.
(2) The defendant must have actually been provoked.
(3) A provocation only applies to a temporary moment in time. This is sometimes called "the heat of the moment". It's that moment where a person has been provoked and for some period of time is unable to think straight or reasonably. How long is that time? That's for you to argue on the exam. Sometimes it will be obvious because the fact pattern will hint at the fact that the defendant had regained their senses even if their rage only lasted a couple seconds. Other times, you may have to argue that the amount of time presented in the fact pattern is enough for any reasonable person to chill out and no longer be enraged.
(4) Finally, once a person does cool off, their actions are no longer justified by an adequate provocation. In other words, if someone snaps, but calms down, and then kills someone, their actions no longer pass the adequate provocation test.
To determine whether or not a defendant was adequately provoked, you must establish the following factors from the fact pattern:
(1) The action is the type of provocation that would arguably cause an ordinary person to suddenly react super crazy or snap in a fit of rage. For example, if Bob comes home from a long day of work only to find his partner in bed with another man, this could be the type of provocation that would arguably cause an ordinary person to snap and, as a result, kill someone. Again, it isn't to say they aren't a bad person for doing so — they are just not as bad as a person who would kill someone without being provoked.
(2) The defendant must have actually been provoked.
(3) A provocation only applies to a temporary moment in time. This is sometimes called "the heat of the moment". It's that moment where a person has been provoked and for some period of time is unable to think straight or reasonably. How long is that time? That's for you to argue on the exam. Sometimes it will be obvious because the fact pattern will hint at the fact that the defendant had regained their senses even if their rage only lasted a couple seconds. Other times, you may have to argue that the amount of time presented in the fact pattern is enough for any reasonable person to chill out and no longer be enraged.
(4) Finally, once a person does cool off, their actions are no longer justified by an adequate provocation. In other words, if someone snaps, but calms down, and then kills someone, their actions no longer pass the adequate provocation test.
Hypothetical
Hypo 1: Bob loves pickles on his sandwich. No matter how hard his life is, the one thing that makes Bob find peace is eating a sandwich with pickles on it. One day, Bob is fired from his job. Sad and defeated, Bob goes to his local sandwich shop and orders his trusty turkey sandwich with extra pickles. Bob pays for his sandwich, takes a bite, and immediately realizes there are no pickles in his sandwich. Bob snaps like a crisp dill pickle, jumps over the counter, and beats the sandwich artist to death with a piece of salami. Result: Though Bob may have been genuinely provoked, this is not the type of provocation that would cause an ordinary person to violently lash out. As such, Bob's scenario would fail the adequate provocation test.
Hypo 2: Same facts as Hypo 1, except instead of immediately eating the sandwich, Bob takes his food home. After driving 45 minutes home, Bob opens the sandwich, takes a bite, and realizes it is missing pickles. He snaps. He gets back in his car, drives to the sandwich shop, and beats the sandwich artist to death. Result: Here, even if missing pickles were sufficient to provoke an ordinary person (which they are not), Bob would still fail the adequate provocation test because he had sufficient time to cool off (45 minutes to drive back to the store). If Bob is the kind of person that can't cool down from a 45 minute drive and avoid killing someone, then they aren't deserving of a reduced "voluntary manslaughter" charge.
Hypo 3: Bob hates his marriage. He hates his wife. And he especially hates his neighbor, Sam. Day after day, Bob fantasizes about divorcing his wife and killing Sam. One day, when Bob gets home from work, he finds his wife sleeping with Sam. Bob thinks, "Oh, awesome! Now I can divorce my wife without any guilt and have the best excuse to kill Sam." Bob grabs a gun and shoots Sam. Result: Though this is the type of situation that would justifiably cause an ordinary person to be provoked, the reality is that Bob was not actually provoked.
Hypo 4: Sam loves his grandma. When Sam's mom abandoned him, his grandma is who took him in and raised him. When she died, Sam was crushed. At her funeral, as Sam looks down on his departed, beloved grandma, Bob walks up to Sam, leans in, and whispers, "Ey, your grammy was a whore." Sam snaps and, in a fit of rage, chokes Bob to death. Result: This is the type of adequate provocation that would arguably pass the test. Here, Sam experienced the type of provocation that would arguably cause an ordinary person to have a "sudden and intense passion." Sam was actually provoked, and did not have time to cool off before immediately choking Bob.
Hypo 5: Same facts as Hypo 4, except instead of Sam immediately strangling Bob, Sam pauses for a moment, collects himself, and is able to cool off. However, a few minutes later, Sam remembers what Bob had said, then violently snaps and strangles Bob to death. Result: Here, the adequate provocation test likely fails because Sam had actually cooled off and though the original provocation would arguably be the type that justifies him snapping, the memory of that provocation is not sufficient to justify his later rage. In other words, the law is saying, "If you were able to cool off after originally being provoked, you should be able to cool off if the provocation resurfaces in your mind later."
Hypo 2: Same facts as Hypo 1, except instead of immediately eating the sandwich, Bob takes his food home. After driving 45 minutes home, Bob opens the sandwich, takes a bite, and realizes it is missing pickles. He snaps. He gets back in his car, drives to the sandwich shop, and beats the sandwich artist to death. Result: Here, even if missing pickles were sufficient to provoke an ordinary person (which they are not), Bob would still fail the adequate provocation test because he had sufficient time to cool off (45 minutes to drive back to the store). If Bob is the kind of person that can't cool down from a 45 minute drive and avoid killing someone, then they aren't deserving of a reduced "voluntary manslaughter" charge.
Hypo 3: Bob hates his marriage. He hates his wife. And he especially hates his neighbor, Sam. Day after day, Bob fantasizes about divorcing his wife and killing Sam. One day, when Bob gets home from work, he finds his wife sleeping with Sam. Bob thinks, "Oh, awesome! Now I can divorce my wife without any guilt and have the best excuse to kill Sam." Bob grabs a gun and shoots Sam. Result: Though this is the type of situation that would justifiably cause an ordinary person to be provoked, the reality is that Bob was not actually provoked.
Hypo 4: Sam loves his grandma. When Sam's mom abandoned him, his grandma is who took him in and raised him. When she died, Sam was crushed. At her funeral, as Sam looks down on his departed, beloved grandma, Bob walks up to Sam, leans in, and whispers, "Ey, your grammy was a whore." Sam snaps and, in a fit of rage, chokes Bob to death. Result: This is the type of adequate provocation that would arguably pass the test. Here, Sam experienced the type of provocation that would arguably cause an ordinary person to have a "sudden and intense passion." Sam was actually provoked, and did not have time to cool off before immediately choking Bob.
Hypo 5: Same facts as Hypo 4, except instead of Sam immediately strangling Bob, Sam pauses for a moment, collects himself, and is able to cool off. However, a few minutes later, Sam remembers what Bob had said, then violently snaps and strangles Bob to death. Result: Here, the adequate provocation test likely fails because Sam had actually cooled off and though the original provocation would arguably be the type that justifies him snapping, the memory of that provocation is not sufficient to justify his later rage. In other words, the law is saying, "If you were able to cool off after originally being provoked, you should be able to cool off if the provocation resurfaces in your mind later."
Visual Aids
Related Concepts
What are the five inherently dangerous felonies that trigger the Felony Murder Rule?
What is a homicide?
What is deliberation?
What is imperfect self-defense?
What is involuntary manslaughter?
What is malice aforethought?
What is murder?
What is premeditation?
What is the agency theory of the Felony Murder Rule?
What is the Felony Murder Rule?
What is the proximate cause theory of the Felony Murder Rule?
