State v. Dumlao
6 Haw. App. 173, 715 P.2d 822 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Hawaii's manslaughter statute, which is derived from the Model Penal Code, the mitigating defense of "extreme mental or emotional disturbance" (EMED) replaces the common law "heat of passion" doctrine. The reasonableness of the explanation for the disturbance is determined from the viewpoint of a person in the defendant's situation under the circumstances as the defendant believed them to be, which requires the jury to consider the defendant's subjective, internal situation.
Facts:
- Vidado B. Dumlao was married to Florentina Reyes for ten years, during which he exhibited extreme, pathological jealousy.
- A psychiatrist diagnosed Dumlao with a "paranoid personality disorder," characterized by unwarranted suspiciousness and hypersensitivity.
- Throughout the marriage, Dumlao frequently accused his wife of having sexual relations with other men, including her own brothers, and would become enraged over innocuous events.
- Dumlao's jealousy led him to beat, kick, throw a knife at, and threaten to kill his wife on numerous occasions.
- On the night of the incident, Dumlao became suspicious that his brother-in-law, Agapito, intended to have sexual relations with his wife.
- Dumlao confronted and questioned his wife about this suspicion, kicking or pushing her.
- Shortly thereafter, Dumlao came out of his bedroom with his gun and got into a confrontation with his brothers-in-law, whom he believed were angry and threatening.
- During the confrontation, Dumlao's gun discharged, firing a bullet that struck and killed his mother-in-law, Pacita M. Reyes.
Procedural Posture:
- Vidado B. Dumlao was charged with murder and reckless endangering in a Hawaii state trial court.
- At the conclusion of his jury trial, Dumlao requested a jury instruction on the mitigating defense of manslaughter due to extreme mental or emotional disturbance under HRS § 707-702(2).
- The trial court refused to give the requested instruction.
- The jury convicted Dumlao of murder and reckless endangering in the first degree.
- Dumlao (appellant) appealed only his murder conviction to the Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawaii, arguing the trial court erred in refusing his requested jury instruction.
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 defendant charged with murder have a right to a jury instruction on the mitigating defense of extreme mental or emotional disturbance when there is some evidence, however weak or inconclusive, that he suffered from a long-standing personality disorder and acted out of pathological jealousy at the time of the killing?
Opinions:
Majority - Heen, J.
Yes. A defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on the extreme mental or emotional disturbance defense if there is any evidence to support it. Hawaii's manslaughter statute, HRS § 707-702(2), adopted the Model Penal Code's broader standard, which replaced the rigid common law "heat of passion" doctrine and its objective "reasonable person" test. The new standard requires the jury to assess the reasonableness of the defendant's explanation for his emotional disturbance from a subjective viewpoint—that of a person in the defendant's situation, under the circumstances as he perceived them. This allows the jury to consider the defendant's personal characteristics, such as Dumlao's diagnosed paranoid personality disorder and pathological jealousy. Because Dumlao presented evidence of his mental condition through expert testimony, family testimony, and his own account, he was entitled to have the jury consider whether he acted under an extreme emotional disturbance and whether his explanation was reasonable from his unique perspective.
Analysis:
This decision officially adopts the Model Penal Code's modern, subjective approach to the manslaughter mitigation defense in Hawaii, moving decisively away from the common law's more rigid provocation doctrine. By emphasizing that the jury must view the situation from the defendant's perspective, the court significantly broadens the scope of the defense. This allows for the consideration of a defendant's unique psychological traits, personal history, and mental condition (short of insanity) in assessing culpability. The ruling provides a pathway for defendants with recognized mental or emotional disturbances to have their charge reduced from murder to manslaughter, ensuring that the jury, not the judge, weighs the credibility of the evidence supporting the defense.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Dumlao