United States v. Paul

37 F.3d 496 (9th Cir. 1994)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Darlene Paul died during a fight with her husband, D, at their home. D claims his wife came home drunk around one o'clock in the morning. Darlene wouldn't tell him where their 2 1/2-year-old son, Joshua, was. An argument ensued during which the two traded personal insults and accusations leading to violence. During the fight, D strangled Darlene and banged her head against the ground. Believing he killed her, D took a shower to wash the blood off himself and changed into new clothes. He then went to his mother's house, told her he thought he killed Darlene and instructed her to call the police to come pick him up. D was indicted for second-degree murder. The court instructed the jury on the difference between the lesser-included offenses of voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. Voluntary Manslaughter: First, D killed Darlene Paul; D acted in the heat of passion; the heat of passion was caused by adequate provocation. Heat of passion may be provoked by fear, rage, anger, or terror. Provocation, in order to be adequate, must be such as might naturally cause a reasonable person in the passion of the moment to lose self-control and act on impulse and without reflection . . . .Involuntary Manslaughter: Darlene Paul was killed as a result of an act by D; D's act either was by its nature dangerous to human life or was done with reckless disregard for human life; and D either knew that such conduct was a threat to the lives of others or knew of circumstances that would reasonably cause the defendant to foresee that such conduct might be a threat to the lives of others . . . . The jury sent the following question to the court: 'Legally if person A dies as a result of person B's actions, can person B kill person A?' Response: The answer to your question is yes; however, whether or not the killing is unlawful requires a determination of the facts surrounding the death. The law in the instructions should then be applied to the facts which the jury finds to exist in order for the jury to arrive at its verdict in the case. The jury asked for some explanation or clarification on the difference between voluntary manslaughter, the first element, 'the defendant killed Darlene Paul,' and involuntary manslaughter, the first element, 'Darlene Paul was killed as a result of an act by the defendant?'' The court said they were the same with the distinction in the additional elements. D was found guilty and appealed.