Opinion ID: 2326672
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Adequate Provocation

Text: [¶ 13] Bridges also contends that the court should have instructed the jury on the defense of adequate provocation as she requested. She argues that the circumstances from which a reasonable inference may be drawn that [she] shot [Ingraham] while acting under the influence of extreme anger or extreme fear are: 1. [She] was tiny compared to [Ingraham]; 2. [Ingraham] was telling [her and] others he wanted to leave Maine with the baby; 3. [Ingraham] was telling others he and [Bridges] were not getting along; 4. There were clothes strewn all about outside of the home; 5. The clothes strewn included baby clothes; 6. There were clothes strewn all about the inside of the home; 7. Bloody scissors were found in the living room; 8. The scissors had been in the bedroom at one time to get [Ingraham's] blood on same; 9. [Her] hair had been cut rather sloppily; 10. [Ingraham] was naked; 11. The [State] presented evidence that [she] shot [Ingraham] because he was abusive; 12. [Ingraham] was shot in the back of the head; and 13. [She] fled the home to cool down. She contends that this evidence, if taken collectively, supports an adequate provocation instruction because it is suggestive of a physical confrontation, a possible sexual encounter she did not want, and that Ingraham may have been abusing her. [¶ 14] We review a denial of a request for a jury instruction for prejudicial error. State v. Graham, 2004 ME 34, ¶ 12, 845 A.2d 558, 561; see also State v. Doyon, 1999 ME 185, ¶ 7, 745 A.2d 365, 367. Title 17-A M.R.S.A. § 201(3) (Supp.2003) provides: It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution [for intentionally or knowingly causing the death of another human being] that the person causes the death while under the influence of extreme anger or extreme fear brought about by adequate provocation. [3] Provocation is adequate if [i]t is not induced by the person, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 201(4)(A) (Supp.2003), and [i]t is reasonable for the person to react to the provocation with extreme anger or extreme fear, id. § 201(4)(B). Adequate provocation is an affirmative defense, and accordingly, it must be proved by the defendant by a preponderance of the evidence. 17-A M.R.S.A. § 101(2) (1983). [¶ 15] Although the adequacy of the provocation ... is a conclusion to be drawn by the trier of fact, the court must determine in the first instance whether the evidence is legally sufficient to generate the defense, thus requiring submission to the jury. State v. Michaud, 611 A.2d 61, 63 (Me.1992) (citation omitted). Whether any evidence exists from which the jury could find adequate provocation is a question of law to be determined by the court. Id. The court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant when determining whether sufficient evidence existed to warrant a jury instruction on adequate provocation. State v. Michaud, 1998 ME 251, ¶ 17, 724 A.2d 1222, 1230. If the evidence is sufficient to make the existence of all the facts constituting the defense a reasonable hypothesis for the factfinder to entertain, then an instruction is appropriate. State v. Case, 672 A.2d 586, 589 (Me.1996) (quotation marks omitted). [¶ 16] There are few instances when we have recognized conduct as being sufficient to engender extreme anger or fear and mitigate the conduct of [a] defendant. State v. Cumming, 634 A.2d 953, 957 (Me.1993). Inflammatory words alone, State v. Hilliker, 327 A.2d 860, 865 (Me.1974), notes suggesting that an ex-spouse has begun a new romantic relationship, Cumming, 634 A.2d at 957, and discovering an ex-spouse slow dancing with another person, Tribou v. State, 552 A.2d 1262, 1263-65 (Me.1989), have been held insufficient in this regard. [¶ 17] Even when the evidence in this case is viewed in the light most favorable to Bridges, the court acted well within its discretion when it refused to instruct the jury on adequate provocation, because the court correctly determined that that evidence is insufficient to make the existence of all the facts constituting the defense a reasonable hypothesis for the factfinder to entertain. Case, 672 A.2d at 589 (quotation marks omitted). The entry is: Judgment affirmed.