Commonwealth v. LeClair
445 Mass. 734, 840 N.E.2d 510, 2006 Mass. LEXIS 7 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In Massachusetts, the legal provocation required to mitigate a murder charge to voluntary manslaughter must originate from the victim, not a third party. A defendant's 'heat of passion' resulting from a conflict with one individual cannot serve as a legal excuse for intentionally killing an innocent bystander.
Facts:
- The defendant, LeClair, and his wife were experiencing marital conflict, and she had recently left their home.
- On January 4, 1998, the wife returned to the home, accompanied shortly after by her brother.
- After the wife told LeClair she was leaving him for good, LeClair became upset and ordered her brother off the property.
- LeClair swung at his brother-in-law, and the two men wrestled until the brother-in-law pinned LeClair to the ground.
- The victim had gone inside to call the police and, upon seeing the fight, urged her brother to release LeClair.
- After being released, LeClair immediately went into the kitchen, grabbed a knife, and fatally stabbed his wife while she was on the phone with the police.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant was indicted for murder in the first degree.
- In Superior Court, the defendant filed a motion to suppress his written incriminating statement.
- The Superior Court judge granted the motion to suppress.
- The Commonwealth filed an interlocutory appeal to the Appeals Court.
- The Appeals Court reversed the Superior Court's suppression order.
- The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court denied the defendant's application for further appellate review of the pre-trial suppression issue.
- The case proceeded to trial in the Superior Court, where a jury convicted the defendant of murder in the second degree.
- The defendant applied for direct appellate review of his conviction to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.
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 adequate legal provocation by a third party, rather than the victim, entitle a defendant to a jury instruction on voluntary manslaughter?
Opinions:
Majority - Greaney, J.
No. A defendant is not entitled to a voluntary manslaughter instruction based on provocation from a third party. Our case law has consistently held that the provocation sufficient to mitigate murder to manslaughter must come from the victim. The court rejected the defendant's argument to adopt the Model Penal Code's broader view, which allows for mitigation when a homicide is committed under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance, regardless of the source. The court reaffirmed that Massachusetts follows the traditional common-law rule, which assumes a reasonable person would not be so provoked as to strike out in blind anger at an innocent person. Here, the victim played no role in provoking her own death; she was attempting to de-escalate the situation and call for help. Therefore, the physical altercation with the victim's brother did not constitute legally adequate provocation for the killing of the wife.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms and solidifies Massachusetts's adherence to the traditional common-law rule on provocation in homicide cases. By explicitly rejecting the Model Penal Code's more subjective 'extreme emotional disturbance' standard, the court maintains a strict requirement that the victim must be the source of the provocation. This creates a clear, bright-line rule that prevents the expansion of the voluntary manslaughter defense to cases involving displaced aggression or the killing of innocent bystanders. The ruling ensures that the mitigating defense is narrowly applied only when the victim's own actions are deemed sufficient to provoke a reasonable person to violence.
