State v. Ordway
934 P.2d 94 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The 'unreasonable but honest belief' that justifies reducing a murder charge to voluntary manslaughter under an imperfect self-defense theory cannot be based on a psychotic delusion. The imperfect self-defense doctrine is distinct from the insanity defense and is not intended as a mitigating factor for defendants whose beliefs stem from a severe mental illness.
Facts:
- Kim Ordway lived with his parents, Clarence and Betty Ordway, after becoming severely depressed.
- In the week leading up to the killings, Ordway isolated himself in his room.
- Ordway developed the delusional belief that his parents were going to harm or kill his children, and he began hearing voices telling him he needed to kill his parents to save his sons.
- On or around November 18, 1993, Ordway shot and killed his father, Clarence, with a shotgun.
- Ordway also shot his mother, Betty, multiple times and inflicted blunt force trauma injuries, including defensive wounds to her forearms.
- He wrapped his father's body and left it in the garage, placed his mother's body in the trunk of his parents' Chevrolet, and drove the car to Kenmore, New York.
- On November 22, 1993, police in New York found Ordway in the car and he told them his mother's body was in the trunk.
- Ordway had a documented history of mental illness, including a prior diagnosis of Schizophrenia, Paranoid Type, and was evaluated by a psychiatrist who concluded he was suffering from a major depressive reaction with psychotic features at the time of the killings.
Procedural Posture:
- Kim Ordway was charged with two counts of first-degree murder and one count of felony theft in a Kansas district court (trial court).
- At trial, Ordway raised an insanity defense.
- Ordway's counsel requested a jury instruction on the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter under an 'imperfect self-defense' theory, which the trial court refused to give.
- The jury convicted Ordway on two counts of second-degree murder and one count of felony theft.
- Ordway (appellant) appealed his convictions to the Supreme Court of Kansas, arguing that the trial court erred in refusing the voluntary manslaughter 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 the 'unreasonable but honest belief' standard for voluntary manslaughter under K.S.A. 21-3403(b), also known as 'imperfect self-defense,' apply when a defendant's belief that deadly force is necessary stems from a psychotic delusion?
Opinions:
Majority - Allegrucci, J.
No. The 'unreasonable but honest belief' necessary to support a conviction for voluntary manslaughter under the imperfect right to self-defense cannot be based upon a psychotic delusion. The court reasoned that the legislative intent behind the imperfect self-defense statute (K.S.A. 21-3403[b]) was to create a middle ground for intentional killings that result from a subjectively honest but objectively unreasonable belief in the need for self-defense, based on real-world circumstances. The court found no indication that the legislature intended for this provision to apply to beliefs founded in psychotic delusions or to serve as a mitigating factor for the insanity defense. Citing an analogous Illinois case, People v. Aliwoli, the court concluded that an insanity defense is not a mitigating factor to reduce murder to the lesser offense of voluntary manslaughter. Therefore, the trial court was correct in refusing to give a jury instruction on voluntary manslaughter.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a clear doctrinal boundary in Kansas law between the insanity defense and the statutory provision for imperfect self-defense. By holding that a defendant's psychotic delusion cannot form the basis for an 'unreasonable but honest belief,' the court prevents the two distinct defenses from merging. This forces defendants with severe mental illness to choose between arguing for a complete acquittal via the insanity defense or, if the facts allow, arguing for mitigation to manslaughter based on a non-delusional, but still unreasonable, perception of a threat. The ruling solidifies that imperfect self-defense is intended to mitigate culpability for those who misjudge a real-world situation, not for those whose actions are driven by a complete break from reality.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Ordway