State v. Sety
590 P. 2d 470, 121 Ariz. 354 (1979)
Rule of Law:
The presumption of malice arising from the use of a deadly weapon may be rebutted by sufficient evidence of mitigation, such as extreme provocation and terror instigated by the victim, thereby reducing an unlawful killing from murder to voluntary manslaughter.
Facts:
- David Sety was camping alone when he was awakened by an intoxicated Donald Cue.
- Cue engaged Sety in a rambling conversation about weapons, boasted of having killed eight people, and handled a knife.
- Sety armed himself with a pistol, and upon emerging from his camper, Cue pointed a gun directly at Sety's head and laughed threateningly.
- After Cue continued to threaten him with a rifle, Sety disarmed Cue, announced a citizen's arrest, and shot Cue in the side when Cue appeared to reach for another weapon.
- Sety began marching the wounded Cue toward a dam keeper's house for help.
- During the walk, Cue attempted to flee, and Sety shot him twice in the back, causing Cue to fall motionless.
- When Sety approached the fallen Cue, Cue grabbed him, leading to a physical struggle in which Sety choked Cue into unconsciousness.
- In a final confrontation, Sety shot Cue multiple times, including a fatal wound to the head. Sety claimed self-defense, but physical evidence suggested the final shots were fired at very close range.
Procedural Posture:
- David Sety was tried on an open charge of murder in an Arizona trial court.
- During trial, the court granted a directed verdict of acquittal as to first-degree murder.
- A jury convicted Sety of second-degree murder.
- Following the verdict, Sety filed post-trial motions, and the trial court reduced the conviction to voluntary manslaughter and imposed a sentence.
- Sety, as appellant, appealed the judgment and sentence to the Arizona Court of Appeals.
- The State, as cross-appellant, appealed the trial court's order reducing the conviction from second-degree murder to voluntary manslaughter.
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 substantial evidence of mitigation, arising from a victim's terrifying and provocative actions, rebut the presumption of malice from the use of a deadly weapon, thus requiring the reduction of a second-degree murder conviction to voluntary manslaughter?
Opinions:
Majority - Schroeder, Judge.
Yes. Substantial mitigating evidence can rebut the presumption of malice and reduce a murder charge to manslaughter. Malice, defined as the absence of justification, excuse, or mitigation, is the element that distinguishes murder from manslaughter. While the use of a deadly weapon creates a presumption of malice, that presumption is rebuttable. In this case, the court found 'a classic illustration of manslaughter resulting from mitigating circumstances' because the entire deadly encounter was precipitated by the 'provocation and terror' instigated by the victim, Cue. Even if Sety's final actions constituted excessive retaliation, the overwhelming evidence of mitigation from Cue's initial aggression was sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt as to the existence of malice, making a manslaughter conviction, rather than murder, appropriate.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the legal principle that the context and instigating factors of a crime are critical in determining the defendant's state of mind and criminal liability. It clarifies that the presumption of malice from using a deadly weapon is not absolute and can be overcome by strong evidence of mitigation. The decision establishes that even if a defendant's response becomes excessive, the initial provocation can still be powerful enough to negate the malice element required for a murder conviction. This precedent is significant for future self-defense cases where a defendant's actions may have exceeded the bounds of justifiable force but were initiated under extreme duress or provocation.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: State v. Sety (1979)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"