State v. Guido
191 A.2d 45 (1963)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A prolonged course of ill treatment and oppression can constitute legally adequate provocation for voluntary manslaughter, even without a single, immediate provoking event, if it induces a homicidal response in a person of ordinary firmness and the killing occurs before reason has had time to resume its sway.
Facts:
- Adele Guido and her husband, Guido, had a tumultuous marriage, which began after they started living together in 1952.
- Around 1957, Guido began an extramarital affair that continued until his death and he largely failed to provide financial support for Adele and their child.
- Adele wanted a divorce, but Guido refused, insisting on maintaining the marriage while continuing his affair and neglecting his family responsibilities.
- Shortly before the homicide, Guido physically assaulted Adele at her workplace, attempting to choke her and brandishing a knife, and then forced her to return to their home.
- At their home, Guido threatened to harm their child if Adele thwarted his plans to move to Florida.
- In the early morning of April 17, 1961, after Guido fell asleep on a couch, Adele took his gun.
- Adele testified that she initially intended to commit suicide, but upon returning to the living room and seeing Guido, she shot him until the gun was empty.
- The history between the couple included not just a few incidents of actual injury but also the constant threat of harm, which led Adele to call the police on several occasions to express her fear.
Procedural Posture:
- Adele Guido was convicted of murder in the second degree in a New Jersey trial court.
- The trial court sentenced her to imprisonment for a minimum of 24 years and a maximum of 27 years.
- Guido appealed her conviction directly to the Supreme Court of New Jersey, 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 prolonged course of physical and psychological abuse, which culminates in a homicide, constitute legally adequate provocation to warrant a jury instruction on voluntary manslaughter, even in the absence of an immediate provoking event?
Opinions:
Majority - Weintraub, C. J.
Yes. A course of ill treatment that can induce a homicidal response in a person of ordinary firmness and which the accused reasonably believes will continue should permit a finding of provocation for voluntary manslaughter. The court reasoned that the traditional provocation doctrine, which often focuses on a single, immediate event, should be flexible enough to recognize the 'undoubted capacity of events to accumulate a detonating force, no different from that of a single blow or injury.' The key inquiry is a question of fact for the jury: whether the accused, due to such prolonged oppression, experienced a sudden episode of emotional distress that overwhelmed her reason, and whether she killed because of it before a sufficient time had passed for her emotions to cool. The court also found the trial was unfair due to the prosecutor's introduction of an unsupported theory that the defendant killed to hide a pregnancy and the trial judge's prejudicial interventions and characterization of the defense's psychiatric experts.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadened the concept of legally adequate provocation for voluntary manslaughter. It moved away from a rigid common-law rule requiring a single, sudden act and recognized that a 'slow burn' of cumulative abuse can have the same psychological effect. The case represents a pivotal step in the law's recognition of the experiences of victims of domestic abuse, foreshadowing later developments like the Battered Woman Syndrome defense. By treating prolonged abuse as potentially adequate provocation, the court allows juries to consider the defendant's entire history of victimization when determining culpability, rather than isolating the final act from its context.
