Freddo v. State
127 Tenn. 376 (1912)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To reduce a homicide from murder to voluntary manslaughter based on provocation, the passion must be due to a provocation that the law deems reasonable and adequate, judged by the standard of an average reasonable person, not the defendant's unique sensitivities; mere epithets or offensive language, even when combined with a slight movement that does not constitute an imminent or actual assault, are generally not considered adequate provocation.
Facts:
- Raymond Freddo, a 19-year-old orphan known for being quiet, peaceable, and having a strong antipathy to obscene language, worked at the Nashville & Chattanooga Railway Company roundhouse alongside James Higginbotham, who was about six years older.
- Higginbotham was habitually foul-mouthed and frequently used the epithet 'son of a bitch' as an expression of 'good fellowship.'
- Higginbotham had previously called Freddo a 'son of a bitch,' which Freddo resented and asked him to stop; despite repeated warnings from Freddo and his foreman, J.J. Lynch, Higginbotham continued to use the epithet, even stating, 'the son of a bitch, he won't do nothing of the kind' after being warned.
- On the day of the incident, while working, Higginbotham, in a squatting posture, accused Freddo of spilling oil on his toolbox and angrily called him a 'son of a bitch.'
- When Freddo asked if Higginbotham meant the epithet, Higginbotham harshly and angrily replied, 'Yes, you are a son of a bitch.'
- Freddo, standing about eight feet away, seized a steel bar and struck Higginbotham on the side of the head as Higginbotham was rising from his squatting posture, but had not yet gained an erect position where he could strike.
- Higginbotham fell, was taken to a hospital, and died shortly after from the wound.
Procedural Posture:
- Raymond Freddo was indicted in the criminal court of Davidson County for the first-degree murder of James Higginbotham.
- A jury in the criminal court of Davidson County found Freddo guilty of murder in the second degree and fixed his punishment at ten years imprisonment.
- Freddo's motion for a new trial was overruled by the criminal court.
- Freddo (appellant) appealed the conviction to the Tennessee Supreme Court.
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 mere opprobrious language, combined with a slight movement not amounting to an imminent or actual assault, constitute adequate and reasonable provocation sufficient to reduce a charge of murder to voluntary manslaughter?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Williams
No, mere opprobrious language, even when coupled with a slight movement by the deceased that does not amount to an imminent or actual assault, does not constitute adequate and reasonable provocation to reduce a murder charge to voluntary manslaughter. The Court affirmed Freddo's conviction for second-degree murder, holding that while the blow was struck in sudden anger and passion, the provocation was not 'such as the law deemed reasonable and adequate.' The law tests the adequacy of provocation based on the 'mind of an average reasonable man,' not the defendant's peculiar sensitivities, citing Seals v. State and Johnson v. State. The Court reiterated the established rule that 'no mere epithet or language, however violent or offensive, is sufficient provocation for taking life,' as held in Williams v. State. While an assault too slight in itself might become sufficient provocation when accompanied by offensive language, the Court found no evidence that Higginbotham had gained a position to assault Freddo, or had anything to attack with, effectively distinguishing this situation from cases where an actual or imminent assault or a trespass accompanied the words. The Court noted that the jury, under proper instructions, had the province to determine the facts regarding the provocation, and its verdict implies they found the provocation inadequate.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the high bar for reducing murder to voluntary manslaughter by strictly applying the 'reasonable person' standard to provocation. It clarifies that a defendant's unique sensitivities to offensive language do not alter the legal standard for adequate provocation. The ruling establishes that even in combination, abusive words and slight, non-threatening movements are typically insufficient to obscure the reason of an average person to the degree necessary for manslaughter, thereby limiting the scope of what constitutes legally adequate provocation in homicide cases. This limits defendants from claiming a lesser charge based on personal affronts unless there is an accompanying physical threat or trespass.
