State v. Thornton

NAME:
State v. Thornton, 730 S.W.2d 309 (Tenn. 1987)

FACTS:
· Appellant found his wife, whom he was separated from, engaged in sexual relations w/ Mr. McConkey. This occurred pursuant to her informing appellant that she intended to date other people.
· Appellant is 5’6”, 125 to 130 pounds & suffered from a severe case of scoliosis in which he had surgery to correct that condition. Mr. McConkey, a former athlete was 5’9” & 183 pounds.
· Upon learning of McConkey’s presence, appellant returned home to retrieve his camera & a piston (in case McConkey decided to attack him).
· Appellant, when aware of the fact that his wife was engaged in sexual relations w/ McConkey, stormed into the room turned on the lights & attempted to take photographs of the incident. Fearing that McConkey was attempting to attack him, appellant drew his pistol & shot McConkey in the left hip.
· Appellant said he did not intend to kill McConkey (as evidenced by the fact that he did not aim at a vital organ) but simply to shoot him in order to disable him & also because of his outrage at the situation.

PROCEDURE:
Appellant was convicted of murder in the first degree after the jury rejected both defenses of the appellant.

ISSUE:
Do the facts of the case warrant a conviction of homicide greater than that of voluntary manslaughter?

HOLDING:
NO. The necessary elements of malice and premeditation were not demonstrated in this case to warrant a conviction greater than voluntary manslaughter.

REASONING:
· In a similar case, Δ, from the time he was informed of the assault until the shooting was done was greatly agitated and was not capable of cool and deliberate thinking and reasoning, and killed the deceased while in this state of mind…the fact that less than an hour had elapsed…there was hardly time for his passion to subside or cool…therefore there could not have been malice, express or implied.
· If the circumstances surrounding the case be such that are capable of producing such excitement and passion as would obscure the reason of an ordinary man and induce him, under such excitement and passion, to strike the blow that causes the death, the killing will be reduced to manslaughter.
· If there had been sufficient time for the passion or emotion of the Δ to cool before shooting, then the verdict of murder might be sustained.
· Appellant actual discovered his wife “in flagrante delicto” (Latin: “while the crime is ablaze”)…in our opinion the passions of any reasonable person would have been inflamed and intensely aroused by this sort of discovery.

DISPOSITION:
1st degree murder conviction is set aside and the cause will be remanded to the trail court for sentencing of the defendant for voluntary manslaughter

DISSENT:
DROWOTA, dissenting in part: The use of a firearm coupled with threatening statements supported the finding of malice to sustain a conviction for second degree murder

EVALUATION:
The court properly held that the facts didn’t warrant murder in the first degree as there was no evidence of malice or premeditation and there was significant provocation to warrant voluntary manslaughter.

SYNTHESIS:
In order for a conviction to be reduced to voluntary manslaughter, the act must not only have been done under the impulse of the sudden heat of passion but the provocation of the act must be such that a reasonable person under the same circumstances would have acted the same way. The court has held that no words, regardless of how violent or offensive, warrant the killing of a man. However, certain acts, such as infidelity, can substantiate provocation, especially when caught in flagrante delicto. There can also be no period of cooling where the killer has sufficient time for the passion or emotion to wear off.