Opinion ID: 2393949
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: a. Voluntary Manslaughter

Text: The trial court properly refused Smith's request for a voluntary manslaughter charge. Voluntary manslaughter is the intentional and unlawful killing of a human being in sudden heat of passion upon sufficient legal provocation. State v. Pittman, 373 S.C. 527, 572, 647 S.E.2d 144, 167 (2007). The sudden heat of passion, upon sufficient legal provocation, while it need not dethrone reason entirely, or shut out knowledge and volition, must be such as would naturally disturb the sway of reason, render the mind of an ordinary person incapable of cool reflection, and produce what, according to human experience, may be called an uncontrollable impulse to do violence. Id. at 572, 647 S.E.2d at 167. In determining whether the act which caused death was impelled by heat of passion or by malice, all the surrounding circumstances and conditions are to be taken into consideration, including previous relations and conditions connected with the tragedy, as well as those existing at the time of the killing. State v. Norris, 253 S.C. 31, 35 168 S.E.2d 564, 566 (1969); State v. Gardner, 219 S.C. 97, 105, 64 S.E.2d 130, 134 (1951). To warrant the court in eliminating the offense of manslaughter it should clearly appear that there is no evidence whatsoever tending to reduce the crime from murder to manslaughter. Pittman, 373 S.C. at 572, 647 S.E.2d at 168. We recognize an overt, threatening act or physical encounter may constitute sufficient legal provocation. See id. at 573, 647 S.E.2d at 168, (citing Gardner, 219 S.C. at 105, 64 S.E.2d at 134) (observing that [t]his Court has previously held that an overt, threatening act or a physical encounter may constitute sufficient legal provocation.). While Smith's assertion of legal provocation is dubious at best, the record is devoid of any evidence of heat of passion. For a defendant to be entitled to a voluntary manslaughter charge, there must be evidence of both sufficient legal provocation and heat of passion at the time of the killing. See State v. Cole, 338 S.C. 97, 101, 525 S.E.2d 511, 513 (2000) (Both heat of passion and sufficient legal provocation must be present at the time of the killing.). According to Smith, he was not enraged, incapable of cool reflection, or acting under an uncontrollable impulse to do violence. Because of the absence of any evidence of heat of passion, the trial court properly declined the voluntary manslaughter charge. [2] We reverse the court of appeals on this issue.