Opinion ID: 2336320
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: lesser included offense of first degree manslaughter

Text: Appellant's next claim of error is that the trial court denied his state and federal due process rights by refusing to instruct the jury on the lesser offense of first-degree manslaughter. Appellant contends that a letter sent to him by his wife two weeks before her death caused extreme emotional disturbance justifying a first degree manslaughter instruction. The letter was introduced through the testimony of James Waddell, who had provided housing for Appellant for several weeks before the crimes occurred. Waddell read part of the letter and testified that anyone would've been [upset] in this situation. However, there was no evidence presented at trial regarding the details of the letter. Appellant argues that one can reasonably infer from Waddell's testimony that Audrey's letter informed Bray of either her intent to file a third amended petition for divorce or the fact that she had already instructed her attorney to do so. The first-degree manslaughter statute, KRS 507.030, requires the presence of extreme emotional disturbance. Appellant produced no such evidence. Waddell stated that anyone would have been upset, but there was no evidence that Appellant had a severe emotional response. When the existence of emotional disturbance is speculative, there should be no first-degree manslaughter instruction. [14] Thus, there was no error.