Sells v. State
653 P.2d 162, 98 N.M. 786 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
While mere insulting words are insufficient provocation for voluntary manslaughter, informational words that suddenly disclose a legally significant event, such as spousal infidelity, may constitute adequate provocation to warrant a jury instruction on the charge.
Facts:
- Joseph Sells and his wife, Barbara Sells, engaged in a series of heated arguments overnight at several bars and continuing at their residence.
- Both Mr. and Mrs. Sells had been drinking heavily throughout the night and into the early morning.
- During the arguments, Mrs. Sells revealed to Mr. Sells for the first time that she was having an affair with a boyfriend.
- Witnesses observed that Mr. Sells appeared dazed and shocked upon learning of the infidelity.
- Mrs. Sells also told her husband that she enjoyed her sexual relationship with her boyfriend.
- Mr. Sells then realized that a recent trip his wife had taken and a large long-distance phone bill were related to the affair.
- A scuffle or struggle occurred between Mr. and Mrs. Sells just before the shooting.
- Shortly thereafter, Mr. Sells fatally shot Mrs. Sells with a .22 caliber handgun as she sat at the kitchen table.
Procedural Posture:
- Joseph Sells was charged with first-degree murder for the death of his wife, Barbara Sells.
- At trial in the state court of first instance, the judge instructed the jury on first-degree murder, second-degree murder, and involuntary manslaughter.
- The trial court refused Sells' request for a jury instruction on voluntary manslaughter.
- The jury convicted Sells of second-degree murder with a firearm enhancement.
- Sells (appellant) appealed his conviction to the New Mexico Court of Appeals, arguing the trial court erred by not giving the manslaughter instruction.
- The Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court) affirmed the trial court's conviction.
- Sells (petitioner) then petitioned the New Mexico Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
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 in refusing to give a jury instruction on voluntary manslaughter when the defendant's alleged provocation consists of his wife's sudden verbal confession of infidelity, combined with a series of arguments and a physical scuffle?
Opinions:
Majority - Federici, Justice.
Yes, the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter. While words alone are generally not adequate provocation, there is a distinction between mere insults and 'informational words' that convey a shocking event. A sudden disclosure of adultery can be the legal equivalent of witnessing the act itself. In this case, the wife's confession of infidelity, combined with the ongoing arguments, heavy drinking, and physical scuffle, created a totality of circumstances from which a jury could reasonably find that Mr. Sells acted in the heat of passion caused by sufficient provocation. Therefore, the defendant was entitled to have the jury consider the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter.
Analysis:
This decision significantly refines the legal standard for provocation in homicide cases by distinguishing between 'mere insulting words' and 'informational words.' It carves out an exception to the general rule that words alone are insufficient provocation, allowing a defendant's emotional reaction to the sudden discovery of a fact like adultery to be considered by a jury. The ruling broadens the scope of circumstances that can support a voluntary manslaughter instruction, shifting the determination of sufficient provocation more toward the jury as a question of fact based on the totality of the circumstances, rather than a rigid rule of law applied by the judge.
