People v. Turley
50 Cal. 469 (1875)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Mere words of reproach, regardless of how grievous, are not legally sufficient provocation to mitigate an intentional homicide committed with a deadly weapon from murder to manslaughter.
Facts:
- The deceased, who was very drunk, uttered 'words of reproach' toward the prisoner.
- The prisoner was walking away from the deceased at the time the words were spoken.
- Following the verbal provocation, the prisoner killed the deceased.
- The prisoner used a deadly weapon to commit the homicide.
Procedural Posture:
- A jury in the trial court found the prisoner guilty of murder in the first degree.
- The trial court entered a judgment sentencing the prisoner to death.
- The prisoner filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied by the trial court.
- The prisoner (as appellant) appealed both the judgment and the order denying a new trial to the state's highest 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:
Are mere words of reproach legally sufficient provocation to reduce an intentional killing with a deadly weapon from murder to manslaughter?
Opinions:
Majority - By the Court
No. Mere words of reproach are not sufficient provocation to reduce an intentional homicide with a deadly weapon from murder to manslaughter. The court held that this principle is a long and firmly established rule of law. Therefore, the trial court was correct in instructing the jury that verbal insults could not legally mitigate the offense. The court also found no error in the refusal to give a separate jury instruction on manslaughter, as the undisputed facts of the case—a killing with a deadly weapon in response to mere words—did not warrant such an instruction and would only have confused the jury.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the stringent common law standard for what constitutes legally adequate provocation to mitigate murder to voluntary manslaughter. By explicitly stating that words alone are insufficient, the court reinforces the principle that provocation must typically involve a physical threat or battery that would cause an ordinary, reasonable person to lose self-control. This precedent makes it exceptionally difficult for defendants who kill in response to verbal insults to succeed with a "heat of passion" defense. The ruling solidifies the distinction between emotional anger and legally recognized provocation, ensuring that the lesser charge of manslaughter is reserved for reactions to more extreme and immediate threats.
Unlock the full brief for People v. Turley