State v. Schmidt
344 Wis. 2d 336, 2012 WI App 113, 824 N.W.2d 839 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For an adequate provocation defense to mitigate first-degree intentional homicide, the defendant must present 'some evidence' demonstrating that the provocation would cause an ordinarily constituted person to completely lack self-control at the time of the death, even if a history of prior abuse exists, and the defendant cannot intentionally incite the confrontation.
Facts:
- Scott Schmidt and Kelly Wing-Schmidt were married, had two children together, and Wing-Schmidt had three children from prior relationships.
- During their marriage, Wing-Schmidt engaged in emotionally and psychologically abusive behaviors towards Schmidt, including isolating him from his family and friends, belittling him, and having an affair with Chad Lindsley.
- The couple experienced significant financial difficulties, including Wing-Schmidt accumulating debt, using their anticipated tax refund without Schmidt's knowledge, and pressuring him for money.
- Wing-Schmidt frequently threatened Schmidt that she would take their children from him and he would not see them.
- Wing-Schmidt physically abused Schmidt by purposely hitting his recently operated shoulder and hitting herself; she also hit him with a phone while he was hospitalized.
- Schmidt discovered a hotel receipt for a single king bed, which he believed indicated Wing-Schmidt was planning a weekend trip with Lindsley.
- Eight days before the shooting, Schmidt called Lindsley and threatened him, stating, 'Stay away from my f***ing wife or I'll kill you.'
- On Friday, April 17, 2009, Schmidt went to Wing-Schmidt's home, where he was no longer living, ostensibly to gather tools, bringing a loaded .22 caliber revolver that he put in his pants.
- Schmidt confronted Wing-Schmidt with the hotel receipt, and they argued, during which Wing-Schmidt told him the children were not his and he would not see them.
- After an argument in the garage, Wing-Schmidt came out and yelled at Schmidt to 'get the frickin' bike tires done and get the F out of here,' emphasizing it was not his home and the children were not his.
- Inside the house, they argued and struggled; Wing-Schmidt again told Schmidt he had nobody and would never have his kids, then pushed him, causing the gun in his pants to fall to his ankle.
- Wing-Schmidt ran out of the bathroom yelling to her mother that Schmidt had a gun, then Schmidt chased her down the stairs, opened a door, heard a gunshot, and Wing-Schmidt was by her van bleeding from her head.
- Schmidt pushed Wing-Schmidt's mother away and heard the gun go off again, ultimately firing multiple rounds from his revolver, striking Wing-Schmidt three times in the head and four times in her arms and hands, killing her.
Procedural Posture:
- Scott Schmidt shot and killed his estranged wife, Kelly Wing-Schmidt, on Friday, April 17, 2009.
- The State charged Schmidt with first-degree intentional homicide.
- Prior to trial, Schmidt moved to introduce other acts evidence in support of an adequate provocation defense.
- Schmidt submitted two documents as offers of proof, listing potential witnesses and a timeline of events, and also testified in camera.
- The trial court denied Schmidt's motion to introduce evidence in support of an adequate provocation defense.
- The case proceeded to trial, and the jury found Schmidt guilty of first-degree intentional homicide.
- Schmidt filed a postconviction motion arguing he was denied his right to present a defense and his right to counsel at the in camera hearing.
- The trial court denied Schmidt's postconviction motion.
- Schmidt (appellant) appealed the judgment of conviction and the order denying postconviction relief to the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin (appellee: State).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Does a defendant's proffered evidence of a turbulent marital relationship, including emotional, psychological, financial, and minimal physical abuse, threats regarding children, and immediate confrontation over infidelity, meet the 'some evidence' standard to warrant an adequate provocation defense for first-degree intentional homicide? 2. Is a defendant denied the right to counsel when their attorney is present but not permitted to question them during an in camera hearing on a proposed affirmative defense, when other avenues for presenting evidence to the court are available?
Opinions:
Majority - Hoover, EJ.
No, Scott Schmidt's proffered evidence was inadequate as a matter of law to raise an adequate provocation issue, and no, Schmidt was not deprived of his right to counsel at the in camera hearing. The court clarifies that an adequate provocation defense requires both a subjective component (the defendant actually believed the provocation occurred and caused a lack of self-control) and an objective component (the provocation would cause an ordinary, reasonable person to completely lack self-control, and the defendant's belief was reasonable). While a 'some evidence' standard is a low bar for placing an affirmative defense in issue, the evidence must be examined as a whole, not individual pieces, to determine if it meets this threshold. The court noted that prior acts of provocation, including a long history of abuse, can be relevant to the objective component, citing Felton and Hoyt. However, the history of abuse presented by Schmidt, though significant, 'pales in comparison' to the severe, decades-long abuse in Felton. Crucially, Schmidt's prior knowledge of Wing-Schmidt's affair (having threatened Lindsley eight days prior) and repeated threats regarding the children negated the objective component of immediate provocation, creating an 'adequate cooling off period' as established in Muller and Williford. Furthermore, Schmidt acted as the 'initial provocateur' by confronting Wing-Schmidt, expecting a contentious argument, and cannot then claim her foreseeable reciprocal provocation mitigates his culpability. The court also highlighted deficiencies in Schmidt's offer of proof, such as the lack of explanation for why his revolver was loaded and in his pants, and his admitted intent to confront Wing-Schmidt, which suggested premeditation rather than a sudden loss of control. Regarding the right to counsel, the court found the in camera hearing was merely a supplementary proceeding for Schmidt's benefit to prevent prejudice by minimizing disclosure to the State, and thus not a 'critical stage' of the trial. Schmidt had already presented written offers of proof and had other opportunities to present evidence, and his counsel was present and had a chance to advise him during a recess. Therefore, preventing counsel from directly questioning Schmidt in a non-adversarial setting was a reasonable accommodation within the court's broad discretion.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the high standard for the objective component of the adequate provocation defense, even when a history of abuse is present. It clarifies that while past conduct can be considered, it must still rise to a level that would cause an 'ordinarily constituted person' to completely lose self-control, and prior knowledge or self-incitement of a confrontation can negate the defense. The ruling emphasizes the balance between a defendant's right to present a defense and the need to prevent the introduction of irrelevant or misleading evidence, setting a clear boundary for the 'some evidence' standard. Furthermore, it defines the scope of 'critical stage' for the right to counsel, allowing for in camera hearings in specific circumstances without requiring full adversarial participation from defense counsel, as long as other avenues for evidence presentation are available.
