Opinion ID: 2388199
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Was There Error in the Instructions Given?

Text: The evidence presented in the instant case is that Johnson and the victim had been discussing their situation and relationship all day. Based on review of the briefs and the record, there does not appear to be any evidence regarding a sudden argument or quarrel immediately preceding the victim's death. Johnson stated: When Whiteman refused to leave and instead continued to provide details about the affair, Mr. Johnson's `heart started beating really fast, just pounding.' His head started to hurt, and then everything went black. At some point, a noise at the door roused him, and he opened his eyes. Whiteman was lying on the floor. Fearing that the noise at the door was Josiah coming home, Mr. Johnson pulled Whiteman's body into the bedroom because he `didn't want [Josiah] to see his mom like that.' Johnson did not testify to any sudden quarrel. In fact, it appears that Johnson blacked out during the actual events of the victim's death. In State v. Graham, 275 Kan. 831, 69 P.3d 563 (2003), the court referenced what it saw as support for a sudden quarrel instruction in State v. Cribbs, 29 Kan.App.2d 919, 34 P.3d 76 (2001). Immediately [proceeding] the shooting, an argument erupted between the parties giving rise to an emotionally-charged domestic situation. 275 Kan. at 839, 69 P.3d 563. In his brief to this court, Johnson relied heavily on Graham; however, the facts in that case are distinguishable from the facts in the instant case. In Graham, it appears that Graham's wife let it be known throughout the day in question that she was angry with Graham. Later that day, Graham ordered her into his truck, but she refused. Graham threatened her, and the victim, Crow, intervened. Graham and Crow then had an angry exchange and Graham drove off. Sometime later, Graham returned and approached Crow, cursing and saying he was going to kill him. They got into a physical altercation, resulting in Crow being stabbed. The actual quarrel that immediately led to the murder in Graham did occur quite suddenly, and the stabbing occurred during the physical altercation that immediately followed the sudden quarrel. The Graham court noted that in both Cribbs and this case there was some evidence of `heat of passion' or `sudden quarrel.' Thus, in each case the defendant was entitled to have the jury consider such evidence during its consideration of the elements of attempted second-degree murder. (Emphasis added.) 275 Kan. at 839, 69 P.3d 563. This was not, however, the situation with Johnson and his wife in the instant case. As the district court noted: I don't see how you can call it sudden quarrel when it's been building all day. Sudden quarrel. Common words have their common meaning. And this has been something that has been building all day long. He's already thrown her clothes out into the yard. He's already told her son that she was leaving because she was cheating. I don't see any evidence whatsoever of a sudden quarrel. . . . . This is a fight that was going on all day long, was going on all day. He throws her clothes out into the yard. It's not a sudden quarrel because he just suddenly decides to shoot her, whether he's aware of it or not. The court in State v. Coop, 223 Kan. 302, 573 P.2d 1017 (1978), conducted the most thorough analysis of sudden quarrel under Kansas case law. The court stated: `Sudden quarrel' per se did not arise from the common law definition. Manslaughter required only `heat of passion' or `hot blood,' etc. [Citations omitted.] The Kansas wording apparently comes from the federal statute: `Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice. It is of two kinds: `Voluntary upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion.' (18 U.S.C. § 1112[a]).' . . . . For the moment, if we use words such as `sudden combat' and `sudden affray' to have similar meanings as `sudden quarrel,' we see that for the most part it is not truly a separate creature. It is merely one of the means of provocation which brings on heat of passion. [Citations omitted.]'... [A] sudden combat is ordinarily considered on the same footing as other provocations operating to create such passion as temporarily to unseat the judgment.' [Citation omitted.] A few jurisdictions have made affray or quarrel a part of the statutory language. E.g., 18 U.S.C. § 1112(a); Calif. Penal Code § 192; K.S.A. 21-3403. In spite of the `or' wording in the statutes mentioned and in the case law of other jurisdictions, only one jurisdiction has treated the terms separately. ... . . . . `Quarrel,' standing alone, has been defined in a general sense: `In an untechnical sense, it signifies an altercation, or angry dispute, an exchange of recriminations, taunts, threats or accusations between two persons. [Citations omitted.]' Black's Law Dictionary 1409 (Revised 4th ed.1968). No Kansas case defines the term `sudden quarrel.' The few cases to even mention it do so in conjunction with `heat of passion' in quoting the general definition of manslaughter, and then go on to discuss only `heat of passion.' State v. Stafford, 213 Kan. 152, 515 P.2d 769 [ (1973) ]; State v. Burrow & Dohlmar, 221 Kan. 745, 561 P.2d 864 [ (1977) ]; State v. Pyle, 216 Kan. 423, 532 P.2d 1309 [ (1975) ]. The same situation exists in the California and federal cases. The cases, if they mention sudden quarrel at all, just discuss heat of passion or else mix the terms together, such as `upon a sudden quarrel in heat of passion.' People v. Dugger, 179 Cal.App.2d 714, 4 Cal.Rptr. 388 (1960); see People v. Sedeno, 10 Cal.3d 703, 518 P.2d 913, 112 Cal.Rptr. 1 (1974); People v. Best, 13 Cal.App.2d 606, 57 P.2d 168 (1936). Sudden quarrel is one form of provocation for `heat of passion' and is not separate and apart from `heat of passion.' The provocation whether it be `sudden quarrel' or some other form of provocation must be sufficient to cause an ordinary man to lose control of his actions and his reason. In this case there was no evidence of sufficient provocation for defendant's acts to entitle him to an instruction on voluntary manslaughter. His own testimony on direct examination on the issue was: `I remember my wife was sitting in the chair in the front room and we started talking about something. This was pretty faint. I don't really remember well, but I do remember we started talking about something and disagreeing on something, but I don't remember what it was we was even disagreeing on. We wasn't a heated argument, not really what you call actually  maybe not even an argument really. It was just a disagreement on some little thing we was discussing.' We hold that the evidence at trial did not support an instruction on voluntary manslaughter as a lesser included offense. The trial court properly refused to give the requested instruction. (Emphasis added.) 223 Kan. at 305-07, 573 P.2d 1017. The facts in Coop are similar to the facts in the instant case. Like the defendant in Coop, Johnson testified that the encounter between him and Whiteman was not heated and they were not yelling or screaming at each other. In Coop, this court found no evidence of sufficient provocation such that the defendant was entitled to a separate instruction on voluntary manslaughter, let alone sudden quarrel. 223 Kan. at 307, 573 P.2d 1017. In the instant case, there is similarly no evidence of sudden quarrel. Further, the court in Coop held that sudden quarrel is one form of heat of passion and not separate and apart therefrom. The court described heat of passion as including an 'emotional state of mind characterized by anger, rage, hatred, furious resentment, or terror. It must be of such a degree as would cause an ordinary man to act on impulse without reflection.' Coop, 223 Kan. at 305, 573 P.2d 1017 (quoting State v. Ritchey, 223 Kan. 99, Syl. ¶ 1, 573 P.2d 973 [1977]). Heat of passion is defined as: Rage, terror, or furious hatred suddenly aroused by some immediate provocation, usually another person's words or actions. At common law, the heat of passion could serve as a mitigating circumstance that would reduce a murder charge to manslaughter. Also termed sudden heat of passion; sudden heat; sudden passion; hot blood; sudden heat and passion; furor brevis. Black's Law Dictionary 791 (9th ed.). Sudden is commonly defined as: 1. Happening without warning; unforeseen. 2. Characterized by hastiness; abrupt; rash. 3. Characterized by rapidity; quick; swift. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 1286 (1969). Quarrel is defined as: An altercation or angry dispute; an exchange of recriminations, taunts, threats, or accusations between two persons. Black's Law Dictionary 1363 (9th ed.); An angry dispute; an altercation. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 1069 (1969). In the instant case, Instruction No. 8 defined heat of passion as any intense or vehement emotional excitement which was spontaneously provoked from circumstances. Such emotional state of mind must be of such degree as would cause an ordinary person to act on impulse without reflection. Based on this instruction, an unforeseen angry altercation, dispute, taunt, or accusation could fall within this definition as sufficient provocation. While the trial judge did not utilize the term sudden quarrel in his instructions, we note that Kansas, along with most states, considers sudden quarrel to be one form of heat of passion. Accordingly, Instruction No. 8 was sufficiently broad to include sudden quarrel as one form of heat of passion. Additionally, there was no evidence of sudden quarrel. During the jury instruction conference, the trial judge succinctly described the lack of any evidence supporting a sudden quarrel between Johnson and his wife. [Johnson] said that he became angry. ... But ... he professed he remained calm, telling her that she just needed to leave. . . . . I'm telling you what I see in the evidence. Which is, he says that he remained calm, that they weren't fighting, that he just wanted her to leave. He told her to stop, wanted her to leave. He says over and over again that he was calm. ... But there was nothing about a quarrel, or some blow up, or anything like that. ... And the only evidence that comes out about what was going on immediately, prior to her being shot, is that comes from [Johnson], who claims he was calm. Period. ... . . . . I don't see how you can call it sudden quarrel. ... ... I don't see any evidence whatsoever of a sudden quarrel. There was no error in the jury instructions by the district court. Affirmed.