State v. Soto
162 N.H. 708, 34 A.3d 738 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant is not entitled to a provocation manslaughter jury instruction when there has been a sufficient 'cooling-off' period between the provoking event and the killing. A period of reflection, deliberation, and travel to execute a planned retaliation negates the 'sudden passion' required for the defense and is instead considered evidence of malice and revenge.
Facts:
- After Bill threatened Roney White's cousins with a knife, Roney punched Bill in retaliation.
- Later that night, Aaron Kar and his friends drove by a group including Roney and unsuccessfully attempted to hit one of them with a stick from their moving vehicle.
- The next day, Bill and another person attacked Roney with a baseball bat, severely injuring him.
- In response, Roney's brother, Roscoe White, and others planned retaliation and called friends in Nashua, asking them to bring a gun.
- Michael Soto and several others drove with a gun from Nashua to Manchester to meet Roscoe's group.
- The combined group, including Soto, met, smoked marijuana, and formulated a plan to find and confront Roney's attackers.
- After locating a group they suspected included the attackers, Soto wiped a gun with his shirt, cocked it, and handed it to Roscoe White, who had been chosen as the shooter.
- Roscoe White then shot and killed Aaron Kar.
Procedural Posture:
- Michael Soto was charged in Superior Court with being an accomplice to first-degree murder.
- At trial, the court denied Soto's request to instruct the jury on the lesser offense of provocation manslaughter.
- The jury convicted Soto of being an accomplice to first-degree murder.
- Soto (appellant) appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court of New Hampshire, arguing that the trial court erred in refusing the jury 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 a defendant's period of reflection, deliberation, and travel to another city to plan a retaliatory attack constitute a sufficient 'cooling-off' period that negates the 'extreme mental or emotional disturbance' required for a provocation manslaughter jury instruction?
Opinions:
Majority - Lynn, J.
Yes, a defendant's period of reflection, deliberation, and travel to another city to plan a retaliatory attack constitutes a sufficient 'cooling-off' period that negates the 'extreme mental or emotional disturbance' required for a provocation manslaughter jury instruction. The court reasoned that provocation requires the killing to occur before a reasonable person would have had time to cool off. In this case, at least two hours passed between Soto learning of the attack on Roney and the killing of Kar. During this time, Soto and his associates located a gun, drove from Nashua to Manchester, discussed how to avenge the attack, searched for their targets, parked, and discussed who would be the shooter. This sequence of events is not consistent with a sudden, uncontrollable passion but rather demonstrates reflection, deliberation, and a desire for revenge, which are characteristic of murder. The defendant's actions, such as wiping and cocking the gun, further indicated a calm and calculating state of mind, not one under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the strict requirements for the provocation manslaughter defense, emphasizing that the 'cooling-off' period is a critical element that distinguishes murder from manslaughter. The court makes it clear that organized, planned retaliation, even if motivated by a legitimate grievance, will be treated as revenge, which legally constitutes murder. The opinion also provides significant procedural guidance to New Hampshire trial courts, clarifying that provocation is a 'partial defense' that, once raised by the defendant with some evidence, the State must disprove beyond a reasonable doubt, similar to how self-defense is treated.
