People v. Berry

NAME:
People v. Berry, 18 Cal.3d 509, 1976

FACTS:
· Δ did not deny strangling his wife (Rachel), but claimed through his own testimony and through the testimony of a psychiatrist, Dr. Blinder, that he was provoked into killing her b/c of a sudden, uncontrollable rage so as to reduce the offense to one of voluntary manslaughter.
· Upon returning from Israel, Rachel announced to him that while there she had fallen in love with another man, Yako, and had enjoyed his sexual favors, that he was coming out to this country to claim her and that she wished a divorce.
· Thus ensued a tormenting two weeks in which Rachel alternately taunted Δ w/ her involvement with Yako and at the same time sexually excited Δ, indicating her desire to remain with him.
· 7/26 – Rachel returned to the apartment and asked Δ if he was going to kill her, in which he alternated between ‘yes’ and ‘no’ finally saying ‘I have really come to talk to you.’ Rachel began screaming and after several attempts to quiet her, a struggle occurred and he strangled her w/ a telephone cord.

PROCEDURE:
Δ was charged by indictment with one count of murder and one count of assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury. A jury found Δ guilty as charged and determined that the murder was of first degree. Δ was sentenced to state prison for the term prescribed by law. He appeals from the judgment of conviction.

ISSUE:
Was there sufficient evidence in the record to show that he committed the homicide while in a state of uncontrollable rage caused by provocation and therefore the trial court was in error by failing to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter as he had requested?

HOLDING:
YES. The record contained sufficient evidence that the homicide was committed during a state of uncontrollable rage cause by provocation (prolonged periods of teasing or taunting) and therefore the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter as the Δ had requested.

REASONING:
· V.M. as defined by statute is “the unlawful killing of a human being, without malice…upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion,” §192.
· … this heat of passion must be such a passion as would naturally be aroused in the mind of an ordinarily reasonable person under the given facts and circumstances … for the fundamental of the inquiry is whether or not the Δ reason was, at the time of the act, so disturbed or obscured by some passion … to such an extent as would render ordinary men of average disposition liable to act rashly or w/o due deliberation and reflection, and from this passion rather than from judgment. –People v. Valentine (1946) 28 Cal. 2d 121, 169 P.2d 1.
· …verbal provocation may be sufficient – 28 Cal 2d at pp. 141-144
· Δ’s testimony chronicles a two week period of provocatory conduct by his wife that could arouse a passion of jealousy, pain and sexual rage in an ordinary man of average disposition such as to cause him to act rashly from this passion.

DISPOSITION:
Reversed the murder conviction and reduced it to voluntary manslaughter.

DISSENT:
None

EVALUATION:
This case defies the holding in Freddo v. State where the court held no language, regardless of how violent or offensive, is sufficient provocation for taking a life. I concur with the holding of Freddo because words cause no physical harm and the taking of another’s life is causing physical harm and thus an unjust vengeance.

SYNTHESIS:
In order for a conviction to be reduced to voluntary manslaughter, the following elements are required: (1) impulse of the sudden heat of passion; (2) provocation – may be (a) actions, such as infidelity, especially when caught in flagrante delicto, (b) words (prolonged periods of taunting and tormenting) – such that a reasonable person under the same circumstances would have acted the same way; (3) no period of cooling where the killer has sufficient time for the passion or emotion to wear off.