Commonwealth v. Carr
580 A.2d 1362 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Observing consensual homosexual activity is not legally adequate provocation to reduce a charge of murder to voluntary manslaughter, because the test for provocation is an objective one based on what would cause a reasonable person to become incapable of cool reflection.
Facts:
- Claudia Brenner and Rebecca Wight were hiking and set up a campsite for the night along the Appalachian Trail.
- While the two women were resting and engaging in consensual lesbian lovemaking, they were shot by an unseen assailant.
- Claudia Brenner was shot five times in her arm, face, neck, and head but survived.
- Rebecca Wight was shot in the head and back and died from her injuries before help could arrive.
- Stephen Roy Carr, who was in the area at the time, was later identified as a suspect.
- Upon being taken into custody, Carr made statements incriminating himself in the shooting.
Procedural Posture:
- Stephen Roy Carr was tried for murder non-jury in the trial court.
- At trial, Carr's defense sought to introduce evidence of his psychosexual history to argue he had killed in the heat of passion, thus warranting a verdict of voluntary manslaughter instead of murder.
- The trial court found this evidence irrelevant and refused to allow it.
- The trial court found Carr guilty of murder in the first degree and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
- Carr appealed the judgment of sentence to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, arguing the trial court erred by excluding his evidence.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a defendant's subjective psychosexual history become relevant to a 'heat of passion' defense when the alleged provocation—observing consensual homosexual lovemaking—is not sufficient to impassion an ordinary, reasonable person?
Opinions:
Majority - Wieand, J.
No. A defendant's subjective state or personal history is not relevant to a 'heat of passion' defense unless the alleged provocation first meets the objective test of being legally adequate to provoke a reasonable person. The test for legally adequate provocation is objective: it must be an event sufficient to cause a reasonable person to become so impassioned as to be incapable of cool reflection. The court holds that the sight of two women engaged in lesbian lovemaking is not legally adequate provocation. A reasonable person would have simply discontinued the observation and left the scene, not resorted to lethal violence. The law does not recognize homosexual activity as a justification to mitigate murder to manslaughter. Because the alleged provocation fails this initial objective test, any evidence of the defendant's particular psychosexual history, personal misfortunes, or subjective state of mind is irrelevant and inadmissible.
Analysis:
This decision firmly reinforces the objective nature of the 'legally adequate provocation' standard required for a voluntary manslaughter defense. By explicitly rejecting the notion that observing homosexual intimacy can constitute provocation, the court effectively invalidates the 'gay panic' or 'homosexual advance' defense in this context. The ruling clarifies that the 'reasonable person' standard is not tailored to accommodate the defendant's personal prejudices, biases, or unique psychological sensitivities. This precedent makes it significantly more difficult for defendants to mitigate a murder charge by blaming the victim's sexual orientation or consensual sexual conduct.
Unlock the full brief for Commonwealth v. Carr