State v. Guebara
696 P.2d 381, 1985 Kan. LEXIS 307, 236 Kan. 791 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a homicide to be mitigated from murder to voluntary manslaughter, the killing must result from a sudden heat of passion caused by a legally adequate provocation. The test for the sufficiency of the provocation is objective, meaning it must be calculated to deprive a reasonable person of self-control, and mere words or a victim's refusal to dismiss criminal charges do not constitute such provocation.
Facts:
- Paul Guebara and his common-law wife, Genny Guebara, had a tumultuous marital relationship marked by frequent arguments and some violence.
- In February 1983, Genny filed for divorce and also initiated misdemeanor battery and theft charges against Paul.
- The day before the shooting, Paul told a deputy sheriff he was very angry about the divorce and criminal charges and that he was going to kill Genny.
- On February 16, 1983, Paul smoked marijuana shortly before Genny arrived at his parents' house to pick up their child.
- When Genny arrived, Paul confronted her with the criminal process papers.
- Genny told Paul that she had tried to drop the charges but the assistant county attorney would not allow it.
- Immediately after her statement, Paul became angry, pulled out a gun, and shot Genny multiple times as she tried to walk away and then flee.
- After the shooting, Paul admitted to a police officer that he had thought about shooting Genny the day before and had planned to shoot her.
Procedural Posture:
- Paul Guebara was charged with first-degree murder in the District Court of Finney County, Kansas, which is the state's trial court.
- At the conclusion of the trial, Guebara's counsel requested that the jury be instructed on the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter.
- The trial court denied the request for a voluntary manslaughter instruction but did instruct the jury on first-degree and second-degree murder.
- The jury returned a verdict convicting Guebara of murder in the first degree.
- Guebara (as appellant) filed a direct appeal to the Supreme Court of Kansas, arguing the trial court erred by failing to give the 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 victim's statement that she cannot dismiss pending misdemeanor criminal charges against the defendant constitute sufficient provocation to require a trial court to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter?
Opinions:
Majority - Prager, J.
No, a victim's statement that she cannot dismiss pending misdemeanor criminal charges is not legally sufficient provocation to require a jury instruction on voluntary manslaughter. To warrant such an instruction, there must be evidence of provocation adequate to cause a reasonable person to lose self-control and act out of passion rather than reason. The court reasoned that voluntary manslaughter requires two elements: a killing in the 'heat of passion' and a 'sufficient provocation' that caused it. While the defendant may have been in a state of passion, the provocation was legally insufficient. The court applied an objective test, stating that the provocation must be enough to make an ordinary person lose control, precluding consideration of the defendant's individual peculiarities like his quick temper or personality disorder. The court cited precedent that mere words or gestures are not adequate provocation. Genny Guebara's actions—informing Paul she could not drop the charges and attempting to walk away—were not aggressive, physically threatening, or accompanied by insulting words. Therefore, her conduct did not rise to the level of provocation that would cause a reasonable person to react with lethal violence, making a voluntary manslaughter instruction unnecessary.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the strict objective standard for what constitutes legally adequate provocation to mitigate a murder charge to voluntary manslaughter. It clarifies that a victim exercising their legal rights, such as filing and refusing to dismiss criminal charges, cannot be considered sufficient provocation. The ruling limits the 'heat of passion' defense by emphasizing that the defendant's subjective emotional state and personal temperament are irrelevant to the legal analysis of provocation. This precedent instructs lower courts to deny voluntary manslaughter instructions unless the provocation is so severe that it would cause an ordinary, reasonable person—not just the specific defendant—to lose control and act on impulse.
