Dennis v. State
105 Md. App. 687, 1995 Md. App. LEXIS 127, 661 A.2d 175 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To mitigate murder to voluntary manslaughter, the provocation must be legally adequate, which requires a triggering event that would cause a reasonable person to lose self-control. Past grievances or a 'smoldering resentment' cannot be combined with a legally insufficient triggering event, such as observing a spouse in an amorous embrace short of sexual intercourse, to constitute adequate provocation.
Facts:
- Appellant's wife, Robin, began a two-month adulterous affair with the victim, Mark Bantz, in June 1993 and moved in with him.
- Appellant learned of the affair and Robin's subsequent cocaine use in July, becoming upset and making threats against Bantz.
- By early August, appellant had begun to accept the situation and was in the process of reconciling with Robin, who had told him the affair with Bantz was over.
- On Friday, August 20, 1993, Bantz smoked cocaine in the presence of appellant's 12-year-old son.
- The next day, appellant learned of the drug use from his son.
- Appellant, armed with a handgun he had in his car, drove to Bantz's home.
- Upon arrival, appellant looked through a window and saw Bantz embracing Robin from behind with his hands around her and her dress 'hiked up'.
- Appellant then kicked in the door, entered the home, and shot Bantz nine times, killing him.
Procedural Posture:
- The appellant was prosecuted by the State in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, a trial court.
- A jury convicted the appellant of premeditated first degree murder, burglary, and unlawful use of a handgun.
- The appellant appealed his convictions to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, an intermediate appellate court.
- On appeal, the appellant is the appellant, and the State of Maryland is the appellee.
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 observing one's spouse in an amorous embrace, when combined with prior knowledge of the spouse's infidelity and the victim's drug use in front of the defendant's child, constitute legally adequate provocation to reduce a murder charge to voluntary manslaughter?
Opinions:
Majority - Wilner, Chief Judge
No, the combination of events does not constitute legally adequate provocation to reduce murder to manslaughter. For provocation to be legally adequate, it must be calculated to inflame the passion of a reasonable person, causing them to act from reason rather than passion. The court holds that Maryland law recognizes discovering one's spouse in the act of sexual intercourse as adequate provocation, but rejects expanding this category to include mere 'sexual intimacy' or 'significant sexual contact,' finding such terms too vague. The court reasons that any passion from the appellant's prior knowledge of the affair had already cooled, and the information about the victim's drug use did not enrage him. Maryland has not adopted the 'last straw' or 'long smoldering grudge' theory of provocation; therefore, antecedent events cannot make a legally insufficient triggering event—the observed embrace—into adequate provocation.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces Maryland's adherence to a narrow, traditional definition of legally adequate provocation for voluntary manslaughter. It explicitly rejects the 'cumulative provocation' or 'last straw' doctrine, which has been adopted in some other jurisdictions, thereby setting a high bar for defendants. The court's refusal to expand the category of spousal discovery beyond actual sexual intercourse to lesser forms of intimacy clarifies that the doctrine will be strictly construed. This holding solidifies the principle that a defendant cannot legally justify a 'heat of passion' killing by pointing to a series of past wrongs culminating in a minor triggering event.
