Suprenant v. State
925 N.E.2d 1280 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A victim's words indicating an intent to end a relationship, combined with the lawful act of gathering belongings, does not constitute sufficient provocation to warrant a jury instruction on voluntary manslaughter. Furthermore, a defendant's pause during an attack for a collateral purpose, such as dealing with a distraction, negates the element of 'sudden heat' by providing time for cool reflection.
Facts:
- Jack Suprenant and Kerry Bruckman lived together with their three children in Gary, Indiana.
- After several days of arguing, partly over Bruckman's relationship with a mutual friend, Bruckman announced on September 16, 2006, that she was leaving Suprenant.
- Bruckman began to gather her clothes to move out.
- After his attempts to persuade Bruckman to stay were unsuccessful, Suprenant began stabbing her repeatedly.
- The couple's children, alerted by Bruckman's screams, ran into the bedroom and witnessed part of the attack.
- Suprenant stopped his assault on Bruckman, chased the children back to their bedrooms, and then returned to Bruckman.
- Suprenant resumed his attack on Bruckman, ultimately inflicting sixty-one wounds, which caused her death.
Procedural Posture:
- Jack Suprenant was charged with Murder in an Indiana trial court.
- At the conclusion of his jury trial, Suprenant argued for the inclusion of a jury instruction on the lesser-included offense of Voluntary Manslaughter.
- The trial court refused to give the Voluntary Manslaughter instruction to the jury.
- The jury convicted Suprenant of Murder.
- The trial court sentenced Suprenant to sixty years imprisonment.
- Suprenant, as the appellant, appealed his conviction and sentence to the Court of Appeals of Indiana, with the State as the appellee.
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 abuse its discretion by refusing to instruct a jury on voluntary manslaughter where the alleged provocation was the victim's statement of intent to leave a relationship and her subsequent act of gathering her belongings?
Opinions:
Majority - Bailey, J.
No. The trial court did not abuse its discretion, as the evidence was insufficient to support a jury instruction on voluntary manslaughter. To justify such an instruction, there must be a serious evidentiary dispute regarding 'sudden heat,' which is characterized as anger or terror sufficient to obscure the reason of an ordinary person and prevent deliberation. The court found that the alleged provocation—Bruckman's words ending the relationship and the lawful, non-threatening act of packing—did not meet this high standard, reaffirming the principle that mere words are typically insufficient provocation. Most critically, Suprenant's actions demonstrated a capacity for cool reflection, not an uncontrollable rage. By pausing his attack to chase his children back to their rooms and then deliberately resuming the assault, he had an opportunity to reflect on his actions, which is antithetical to the legal concept of 'sudden heat'.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the stringent requirements for a defendant to be entitled to a voluntary manslaughter instruction in Indiana. It clarifies that a combination of words and lawful, non-provocative actions (like packing a bag) does not rise to the level of legally adequate provocation. The court's focus on the defendant's interruption of the attack establishes a significant precedent; it demonstrates that any pause or break in the commission of a homicide can be used as powerful evidence of deliberation, effectively negating a 'sudden heat' defense. This makes it more difficult for defendants to mitigate a murder charge by claiming a loss of control if their actions during the event show any degree of conscious thought or decision-making.
