Maher v. People
Facts
The prosecution's evidence showed that the prisoner entered a saloon by a back way, sweating heavily and appearing excited, walked directly to Hunt, and immediately shot him in the head, then left without any exchange of words. The defense offered evidence tending to show that less than half an hour earlier Hunt had committed adultery with the prisoner's wife, that the prisoner saw Hunt and his wife go into and come out of the woods together, that he followed Hunt immediately to the saloon, and that on the way a friend told him Hunt and the wife had also had intercourse the day before. The trial court rejected this evidence. The legal significance of the excluded evidence was whether it would have supported a finding that, had death ensued, the offense would have been manslaughter rather than murder.
Issue
Whether the trial court erred in excluding evidence tending to show recent adulterous intercourse between Hunt and the prisoner's wife, the prisoner's observation and pursuit of them, and information communicated to him on the way to the saloon. More specifically, the question was whether that evidence was competent because it could support a jury finding of adequate provocation and heat of passion, reducing the offense from murder to manslaughter if death had followed.
Rule
In ordinary homicide cases, an intentional killing is manslaughter rather than murder if committed under passion or heat of blood produced by adequate or reasonable provocation, before a reasonable cooling time has elapsed, and as the result of temporary excitement rather than wickedness or malice. Provocation is legally adequate if its natural tendency would be to disturb reason and arouse passion so that ordinary persons of fair average disposition might act rashly and without due deliberation, and if the jury is satisfied it did so in the particular case. Except where the lack of such tendency is clear beyond reasonable doubt, the sufficiency of provocation and cooling time are for the jury, and evidence forming part of the res gestae is admissible to show the defendant's actual state of mind and the real character of the act.
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
- The court's holding and reasoning
- Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
- 10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
Test yourself
Nolan is charged with assault with intent to murder. The trial judge excludes all evidence about what Nolan saw in the shed, reasoning that the attack was intentional and therefore malicious as a matter of law. Was the exclusion proper?