State v. McGuy
841 A.2d 1109, 2003 WL 22889253, 2003 R.I. LEXIS 209 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To warrant a jury instruction for the lesser-included offense of voluntary manslaughter, a defendant must produce evidence of legally adequate provocation that would cause an ordinary reasonable person to lose self-control and act in the heat of a sudden passion. Mere words, gestures, or the victim's possession of a weapon without an accompanying attack or threat of imminent death or serious bodily harm are insufficient to constitute adequate provocation.
Facts:
- On December 11, 1998, Damien McGuy was seated in the front passenger seat of a car.
- Sherwin "Nesto" Grant leaned into the car's open passenger-side window and engaged in a verbal argument with McGuy that lasted for over five minutes.
- According to McGuy's testimony, during this confrontation, Grant repeatedly touched McGuy's face with one hand while holding a gun in the other.
- McGuy testified that Grant never pointed the gun at him or threatened to shoot him.
- McGuy, stating he feared Grant might shoot him, drew his own gun and fired multiple shots at Grant, killing him.
- One of the fatal bullets entered Grant's neck, and a subsequent shot struck him in the back.
- Police investigating the scene found no gun belonging to Grant.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Rhode Island charged Damien McGuy with second-degree murder and several related firearm offenses in a state trial court.
- At trial, McGuy requested that the judge instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of voluntary manslaughter, but the judge denied this request.
- A jury found McGuy guilty of second-degree murder and the other charges.
- After the verdict, McGuy moved to dismiss one of the charges on double jeopardy grounds, which the trial court denied.
- McGuy, as the appellant, appealed the judgment of conviction to the Supreme Court of Rhode Island.
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 give a jury instruction on the lesser-included offense of voluntary manslaughter when the defendant's claim of provocation is based on a verbal altercation and the victim holding a gun without attacking, pointing it, or otherwise threatening imminent harm?
Opinions:
Majority - Flanders, J.
No. A trial court does not err by refusing a voluntary manslaughter instruction where the evidence of provocation is legally insufficient. To justify such an instruction, the defendant must present evidence that the killing was an intentional homicide committed without malice aforethought, in the heat of a sudden passion, as a result of adequate provocation. The court determined that McGuy failed to produce even minimal evidence of adequate provocation. The legal standard for provocation is objective: it must be 'so gross as to cause the ordinary reasonable man to lose his self control.' The court reasoned that Grant's conduct—verbal abuse, touching McGuy's face, and holding a gun without pointing it or threatening to use it—did not rise to this level. Fear alone is insufficient to establish the 'heat of passion' required for manslaughter. Furthermore, the five-plus minute duration of the confrontation militated against a finding of 'sudden' passion, suggesting McGuy had time to rationalize a preemptive strike rather than acting from an uncontrollable rage.
Analysis:
This case refines the legal standard for 'adequate provocation' in homicide law, reinforcing that the standard is objective, not subjective to the defendant's personal fear. By holding that a victim's mere possession of a weapon during a verbal dispute is not legally adequate provocation, the court sets a high bar for defendants seeking a voluntary manslaughter instruction. This decision distinguishes between a potential threat and an imminent one, clarifying that the provocation must involve an actual attack or an act threatening imminent death or serious bodily harm. The ruling will likely make it more difficult for defendants in similar circumstances to argue that their fear of an armed victim mitigates murder to manslaughter without evidence of the victim's aggressive use of the weapon.
