People v. Chevalier

Illinois Supreme Court
544 N.E.2d 942, 131 Ill. 2d 66 (1989)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A spouse's verbal confession of adultery, combined with insulting remarks, constitutes 'mere words' and is not legally adequate provocation to reduce a homicide from murder to voluntary manslaughter.

Facts:

In two separate cases, defendants Rudolfo Flores and Robert Chevalier each suspected their wives of marital infidelity.
Flores had suspected his wife of an affair for approximately eight months.
Chevalier's wife had previously left him on three occasions to live with his best friend.
Just prior to the killing, each man confronted his wife in an argument about adultery.
During the argument, Chevalier's wife admitted to adultery and disparaged his sexual abilities.
During a similar argument, Flores' wife admitted to adultery and flaunted the fact that she had slept with her lover in their marital bed.
Following these verbal revelations, both Flores and Chevalier shot and killed their respective wives.
After the shooting, Chevalier concealed the crime by driving his wife's body from Illinois to Michigan and leaving it alongside a highway.

Procedural Posture:

In separate jury trials in Illinois circuit courts (trial courts), both Rudolfo Flores and Robert Chevalier were convicted of murdering their wives.
At trial, the court refused to give Flores's jury a voluntary manslaughter instruction, while Chevalier's jury received an instruction that he later argued on appeal was erroneous.
Both defendants appealed their convictions to the Illinois Appellate Court (intermediate appellate court).
In each case, the appellate court reversed the murder conviction and remanded for a new trial, holding that the defendants were entitled to a voluntary manslaughter instruction based on the wives' verbal confessions of adultery.
The State of Illinois, as the appellant, petitioned for leave to appeal both decisions to the Supreme Court of Illinois (the state's highest court), which consolidated the cases for review.

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 spouse's verbal confession of adultery, coupled with taunts or insults, constitute legally adequate 'serious provocation' sufficient to reduce a murder charge to voluntary manslaughter?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Stamos

No, a spouse's verbal confession of adultery does not constitute legally adequate 'serious provocation' to reduce murder to voluntary manslaughter. The court held that the law recognizes only four categories of serious provocation: substantial physical injury or assault, mutual quarrel or combat, illegal arrest, and adultery with the offender's spouse. Critically, the provocation of adultery is narrowly limited to instances where the offender discovers the spouse in the act of adultery or immediately before or after. A verbal communication that adultery has occurred, no matter how insulting or inflammatory, falls under the well-established rule that 'mere words' are insufficient provocation. The court explicitly overruled a line of appellate cases (Ahlberg, Carr, and Ambro) that had created an exception for verbal confessions, deeming them an incorrect statement of Illinois law and a departure from precedent. A history of marital discord, the court added, undermines a claim of 'sudden' passion rather than supports it. Therefore, because the provocation in both cases consisted of words alone, it was legally insufficient as a matter of law to warrant a voluntary manslaughter instruction.

Analysis:

This decision reaffirms and strengthens the traditional, narrow definition of legally adequate provocation in Illinois homicide law. By explicitly rejecting and overruling the appellate court's attempt to modernize the doctrine by treating a verbal confession of adultery as equivalent to discovering the act itself, the court solidified the 'mere words' rule. This precedent significantly limits the ability of defendants to mitigate a murder charge to manslaughter based on claims of emotional disturbance caused by a spouse's infidelity if the discovery was purely verbal. The ruling provides clarity and predictability, ensuring that only a narrow set of legally recognized provocations, primarily involving physical acts, can be considered.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: People v. Chevalier (1989)

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