People v. Ambro

Illinois Appellate Court — Second District
505 N.E.2d 381, 153 Ill. App. 3d 1 (1987)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A prolonged history of marital discord culminating in a spouse's verbal confession of adultery, combined with other provoking statements such as threats to take the children and taunts, may constitute serious provocation sufficient to warrant a jury instruction on voluntary manslaughter.

Facts:

George Ambro and his wife, Ruth Ambro, were married for over ten years and had two young children, but had experienced significant marital difficulties for the last seven years.
In the months leading up to March 1985, George became suspicious of Ruth's infidelity after she began staying out late at night and he discovered she had purchased birth control pills.
On March 20, 1985, during a marital counseling session, Ruth announced she no longer loved George and intended to divorce him.
On the evening of March 28, 1985, the couple engaged in a series of arguments concerning divorce papers, Ruth's treatment of their child, and her accusations that he was an alcoholic.
While George was in the kitchen holding two knives, Ruth, who was in the living room, told him he had no right to their children and that she was going to take them away from him.
When George knelt beside her and asked how to save their marriage, Ruth stated, 'I have another man and when we make love I feel like it was.'
Ruth then taunted him, saying, 'I know you want to kill me. Pull that knife and make it easy for me,' after which George stabbed her once in the heart.

Procedural Posture:

George Ambro was charged with the murder of his wife, Ruth Ambro.
At trial, the court refused to give Ambro's requested jury instruction on the lesser offense of voluntary manslaughter based on provocation.
A jury in the trial court convicted George Ambro of murder.
The trial court sentenced him to a term of 20 years' imprisonment.
George Ambro, as the appellant, appealed his conviction to the Illinois Appellate 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 a series of provoking events, including a history of marital conflict and a spouse's verbal confession of adultery combined with taunts, constitute 'serious provocation' sufficient to require a trial court to instruct the jury on the lesser offense of voluntary manslaughter?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Nash

Yes, this series of events constitutes serious provocation sufficient to require a jury instruction on voluntary manslaughter. While Illinois law generally holds that 'mere words' are not sufficient provocation, an exception exists where there is a history of ongoing marital discord combined with insulting remarks and an announcement of adultery. The facts of this case—a seven-year history of marital problems, the wife's stated intent to divorce and take the children, her verbal confirmation of infidelity, and her taunt for him to kill her—fall within the exception established by precedents like People v. Ahlberg and People v. Carr. Because George Ambro presented some evidence that he acted under a 'sudden and intense passion' resulting from this cumulative provocation, the trial court erred by refusing to give the jury the voluntary manslaughter instruction.

Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Presiding Justice Lindberg

No, this series of events does not constitute legally recognized serious provocation. The dissent argues that the majority wrongly expands the narrow exception for provocation based on words. The established categories of serious provocation, such as discovering a spouse in the act of adultery, should be strictly applied. The victim's words, while provocative, are still 'mere words,' which are insufficient to meet the legal standard for 'serious provocation' as defined by the Illinois Supreme Court. The precedents of Ahlberg and Carr were unique cases affirming manslaughter convictions to avoid a 'miscarriage of justice' and should not be used to create a broad new rule requiring a manslaughter instruction based on verbal revelations of adultery.

Analysis:

This decision solidifies and arguably expands a significant exception to the traditional rule that 'mere words' cannot constitute provocation for voluntary manslaughter. By following the precedent of Ahlberg and Carr, the court confirms that a cumulative series of psychologically damaging events, rather than a single act, can be legally sufficient provocation. This ruling moves Illinois law toward a more fact-sensitive inquiry, allowing juries to consider the totality of circumstances in domestic homicide cases. The case provides a pathway for defendants to argue for a manslaughter instruction in situations involving confessions of infidelity and intense emotional arguments, even without physical assault or catching the spouse in the act.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: People v. Ambro (1987)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature