High v. United States
972 A.2d 829, 2009 WL 1542777, 2009 D.C. App. LEXIS 184 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a killing to be mitigated from murder to voluntary manslaughter under a heat of passion theory, the provocation must be so severe that it would cause an ordinary, reasonable person to lose self-control and act on impulse. Mere suspicion of a sexual encounter between a friend and an adult, non-close step-sibling is not legally adequate provocation.
Facts:
- Melvin L. High and his childhood friend, Lamar Gaither, spent the day together drinking alcohol and smoking marijuana.
- They went to a house to visit High's adult step-sister, Angela Nivens, who High was not particularly close to.
- At the house, Gaither went upstairs with Nivens and they remained there for 20-25 minutes.
- Upon their return, High appeared upset, and became more so after seeing Nivens give Gaither a kiss on the cheek.
- In the car ride home, High yelled at Gaither, accusing him of having a sexual relationship with Nivens.
- After arriving at High's house, Gaither followed High out of the car.
- A few minutes later, High shot Gaither fifteen times, killing him in the street.
Procedural Posture:
- Melvin L. High was indicted by a grand jury for first-degree murder while armed and other related firearm offenses.
- At the conclusion of a jury trial in the superior court, the trial judge decided, sua sponte, to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter as a lesser-included offense.
- High's counsel objected to the voluntary manslaughter instruction.
- The jury convicted High of voluntary manslaughter while armed, along with several firearm possession charges.
- High, as the appellant, appealed his conviction to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, arguing the trial court erred in giving the instruction.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Was there sufficient evidence of adequate provocation to support a jury instruction for voluntary manslaughter as a lesser-included offense of murder?
Opinions:
Majority - Washington, Chief Judge
No. There was insufficient evidence of adequate provocation to support the voluntary manslaughter instruction. Voluntary manslaughter requires that the defendant act in the heat of passion caused by provocation that would cause an ordinary, reasonable person to lose self-control and kill on impulse. The test is objective. Here, High's belief that his friend had a sexual encounter with his adult step-sister, with whom he did not have a close relationship, does not rise to the level of legally adequate provocation. High's reaction was based on mere suspicion, not a direct discovery of infidelity or a response to a heinous assault on a close family member. Rage alone is insufficient; it must be precipitated by an event so grave that society partially excuses the response, which was not the case here.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high, objective standard for the 'heat of passion' defense that mitigates murder to manslaughter. It clarifies that the nature of the relationship between the defendant and the third party is a key factor, distinguishing cases involving spouses from those involving more distant relatives like an adult step-sibling. The ruling establishes that mere suspicion of infidelity, without direct observation or confession, is insufficient to constitute adequate provocation. This precedent narrows the availability of the voluntary manslaughter instruction, requiring trial courts to scrutinize the facts to ensure they meet the stringent 'reasonable person' test before allowing a jury to consider it.
