Zenou v. State
91 N.W.2d 208, 1958 Wisc. LEXIS 426, 4 Wis. 2d 655 (1958)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trial court is not required to submit instructions for lesser-included offenses (such as second-degree murder or manslaughter) if there is no reasonable ground in the evidence for a conviction of the lesser offense, especially when the evidence overwhelmingly establishes the elements of the higher degree, like intent to kill for first-degree murder.
Facts:
- On or after January 1st, Henri had reasonable grounds to believe his wife, Dorothy, had been unfaithful.
- Dorothy took furniture and sold a truck, which Henri understood to be a violation of their agreement regarding the division of property.
- Henri was frustrated by his inability to obtain an immediate solution to his difficulties from authorities or through an attorney.
- On a Monday afternoon (prior to the killing), Dorothy was unwilling to discuss their matters, and Henri felt he had been deprived of his right to see his children.
- Henri purchased a pocketknife for the purpose of killing Dorothy if they did not reach a settlement, or at least to scare her.
- On January 21, 1957, Henri inflicted 18 or 19 blows to Dorothy's body with the knife, causing her death.
- Immediately after the stabbing, Henri told the sheriff that he had killed her and later signed a written statement that he 'wanted to kill her' and had thought about it for two or three weeks.
- Henri later testified that he bought the knife to scare his wife, struck the first blow or two to scare her, and thereafter lapsed into a dreamlike state where subsequent blows were essentially involuntary.
Procedural Posture:
- Henri was charged with murder in the first degree in the circuit court (trial court).
- The circuit court denied Henri's request for appropriate instructions and submission of forms of verdict on second-degree murder and manslaughter.
- The circuit court found Henri guilty of murder in the first degree.
- Henri appealed the judgment of conviction to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin.
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 err by refusing to submit jury instructions for second-degree murder and manslaughter when the defendant’s testimony regarding a dreamlike state and lack of intent contradicts overwhelming evidence of premeditation and an established intent to kill?
Opinions:
Majority - Fairchild, J.
No, the trial court did not err by refusing to submit instructions for second-degree murder and manslaughter because there was no reasonable ground in the evidence for a conviction of the lesser offenses. Regarding manslaughter, the court found that Henri's grievances—his belief of unfaithfulness, property disputes, frustration with authorities, Dorothy's unwillingness to discuss matters, and feeling deprived of access to children—did not meet the legal test for "heat of passion." Citing State v. Stortecky and Johnson v. State, the court explained that "heat of passion" requires a mental disturbance caused by reasonable, adequate provocation that would ordinarily overcome an ordinary man's judgment, rendering his mind deaf to reason and making him incapable of forming a distinct intent to kill. The court determined that Henri's circumstances were either too remote in time or insufficient in nature to produce the required degree of passion. Regarding second-degree murder, the court concluded there was overwhelming evidence of Henri's mental purpose to kill his wife, supporting a first-degree murder conviction. The court applies the test that a lesser degree should only be submitted if there is some reasonable ground in the evidence, in the judgment of the court, for a conviction of the lesser offense (State v. Stortecky). While Henri testified that he bought the knife to scare her, struck initial blows to scare her, and then entered a "dreamlike state" where blows were involuntary, the court deemed this testimony incredible. This conclusion was based on his undisputed immediate post-killing statements to the sheriff, where he admitted buying the knife to kill his wife if no settlement was reached and stating, "I wanted to kill her." The nature of the multiple fatal wounds also strongly indicated intent to kill. Therefore, the court found that no reasonable view of the evidence could create a reasonable doubt of his intent to kill, upholding the trial court's decision, consistent with precedent like State v. Genova. The court also addressed other defense challenges, finding no prejudicial error in the exclusion of certain photographs (as they were remote and undisputed), in the phrasing of jury instructions on sanity (as the substance was adequately covered), or in the court's rulings on a hypothetical question posed to an expert (due to unestablished assumptions and lack of clear prejudice). The court ultimately concluded that Henri received a fair trial.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the discretion afforded to trial courts in determining when lesser-included offense instructions are warranted, particularly in murder cases. It establishes that a defendant's self-serving testimony, when contradicted by overwhelming and credible evidence of intent, may be deemed insufficient to create a 'reasonable doubt' justifying a lesser instruction. The ruling sets a high bar for what constitutes 'adequate provocation' for manslaughter, emphasizing the need for immediate and extreme emotional disturbance rather than accumulated grievances. This precedent helps prevent 'sympathetic compromise' verdicts by ensuring juries are presented with options only genuinely supported by the evidence.
