Rowland v. State
83 Miss. 483 (1903)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A homicide committed by a husband in the heat of passion immediately upon discovering his wife in the act of adultery is manslaughter, not murder, because the provocation is legally adequate to negate the element of deliberate design.
Facts:
- The appellant, Rowland, was married to but living separately from his wife, Becky Rowland.
- Becky Rowland was staying at the home of Lou Pate.
- Rowland arrived at the Pate house late one night to visit his wife and noticed another man's, John Thorne's, horse hitched outside.
- Hearing his wife and Thorne talking in a dark room, Rowland entered the house to investigate.
- Rowland discovered his wife and John Thorne in the very act of adultery.
- As his wife and Thorne sprang up and ran past him, Becky Rowland blew out the room's only lamp.
- Rowland fired his gun, intending to shoot Thorne, but the bullet struck and killed his wife.
Procedural Posture:
- Rowland was indicted for the murder of his wife, Becky Rowland.
- At a trial in a court of first instance, the jury was instructed on the charge of murder.
- The jury returned a verdict finding Rowland guilty of murder.
- The trial court sentenced Rowland to life in prison.
- Rowland, as appellant, appealed his conviction and sentence 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:
Does a husband who kills his wife in the heat of passion immediately upon discovering her in the act of adultery possess the 'deliberate design' required for a murder conviction?
Opinions:
Majority - Truly, J.
No. A homicide committed by a husband in the heat of passion immediately upon discovering his wife in the act of adultery is extenuated to manslaughter. The law has long recognized that such a discovery is a legally sufficient provocation to produce a 'brevis furor,' or brief fury, which for the moment unsettles reason and negates the 'deliberate design' required for a murder conviction. The court found that whether the husband kills the faithless wife or her paramour, the legal principle is the same. Citing common law and precedents like Reed v. State, the court concluded that the facts could not support a murder charge because deliberation cannot be predicated on the actions of a person in the appellant's situation. Therefore, the trial court's instruction to the jury on the charge of murder was in error.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the common law doctrine of provocation, specifically defining the discovery of spousal adultery as legally adequate provocation to mitigate a homicide from murder to manslaughter. It establishes that, as a matter of law, the 'deliberate design' or malice aforethought required for murder cannot exist when a killing occurs in the immediate 'heat of passion' following such a discovery. This precedent limits prosecutorial discretion in similar cases, making a murder conviction highly unlikely if the facts clearly show an immediate killing upon discovering infidelity. The ruling underscores the law's historical recognition of human frailty in response to extreme emotional shock.
Unlock the full brief for Rowland v. State