Scott v. State
728 S.E.2d 238, 2012 Fulton County D. Rep. 1790, 291 Ga. 156 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
If there is any evidence, however slight, that a defendant acted as a result of a sudden, violent, and irresistible passion resulting from serious provocation, a trial court must instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter. The provocation may be cumulative, and taunting words directly connected to prior outrageous conduct can be sufficient to negate a cooling-off period.
Facts:
- Steven Scott's 16-year-old niece informed him that she had been molested by Dan Smith, who was the boyfriend of Scott's sister.
- About one to two hours after learning this, Scott walked to a convenience store for a beer to calm down and then returned home.
- Smith arrived with Scott's sister (the niece's mother) to pick up the niece.
- Scott, his sister, and his niece went inside to talk, and the sister stated that she did not believe her daughter's accusation.
- Scott, armed with a gun, went outside to confront Smith, who was sitting in his car.
- Scott asked Smith why he had molested the niece.
- Smith responded by taunting Scott, stating, "she’s my b—-, I can do whatever I want."
- Immediately after Smith's taunt, Scott shot and killed him.
Procedural Posture:
- Steven Scott was indicted by a DeKalb County grand jury for malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm.
- At trial in the court of first instance, the judge excluded evidence related to the victim's molestation of Scott's niece.
- The trial court refused Scott's request to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter.
- A jury found Scott guilty of felony murder, aggravated assault, and firearm possession, but did not reach a verdict on the malice murder charge.
- Scott filed a motion for a new trial, which the trial court denied.
- Scott (appellant) appealed the denial of his motion to the Supreme Court of Georgia.
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 trial court err by refusing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter when the defendant presents evidence of learning about the molestation of a family member and being taunted by the perpetrator immediately before the killing?
Opinions:
Majority - Thompson, Justice.
Yes. A trial court errs by refusing to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter where there is slight evidence of sufficient provocation. Although a cooling-off period existed after the defendant, Scott, initially learned of the molestation, the provocation was cumulative. The combination of learning of the molestation, the sister's disbelief, and the victim's final taunt immediately before the shooting constituted slight evidence of a "sudden, violent, and irresistible passion." While the rule that "words alone" are not sufficient provocation still stands, the victim's words in this case were directly connected to his egregious conduct and could be found by a jury to constitute serious provocation. Therefore, the jury should have been given the option to consider voluntary manslaughter, and the failure to do so was a reversible error.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the 'slight evidence' standard required for a voluntary manslaughter jury instruction, emphasizing that provocation can be a cumulative series of events rather than a single act. It establishes that a subsequent verbal taunt directly related to a prior outrageous act can negate an apparent 'cooling off' period, reigniting the passion necessary for the charge. This precedent broadens the scope of what constitutes legally sufficient provocation, giving future defendants a stronger basis to argue for a manslaughter instruction in cases involving an interval between the initial discovery of a wrong and the ultimate violent act.
