Opinion ID: 1826076
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: ManslaughterHeat Of Passion.

Text: Defendant also requested and was refused an instruction on manslaughter as defined in sec. 940.05 (1), Stats: Whoever causes the death of another human being under any of the following circumstances may be imprisoned not more than 10 years: (1) Without intent to kill and while in the heat of passion. In State v. Hoyt, 21 Wis.2d 284, 290-291, 128 N.W.2d 645, rehearing (1964) heat of passion was explained as follows: `That which will constitute the heat of passion which will reduce what would otherwise be murder to manslaughter is such mental disturbance, caused by reasonable, adequate provocation, as would ordinarily so overcome and dominate or suspend the exercise of the judgment of an ordinary man as to render his mind for the time being deaf to the voice of reason; make him incapable of forming and executing that distinct intent to take human life essential to murder in the first degree; and to cause him, uncontrollably, to act from impelling force of the disturbing cause rather than from any real wickedness of heart or cruelty or recklessness of disposition. State v. Stortecky (1956), 273 Wis. 362, 372, 77 N.W. (2d) 721. It has been said that, the provocation, in order to be sufficient in law, must be such as, naturally and instantly, to produce in the minds of persons, ordinarily constituted, the highest degree of exasperation, rage, anger, sudden resentment, or terror. 21 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law (2d ed.), p. 177, quoted in Johnson v. State (1906), 129 Wis. 146, 159, 108 N.W. 55.' [16] [30] In Brook v. State, 21 Wis.2d 32, 42-43, 123 N.W.2d 535 (1963), the court explained that with respect to provocation, the test applied is not the subjective one of whether it was sufficient to produce in defendant said passion as to cause him to kill without intent to do so. Rather it is the objective one of whether the provocation would have caused such state of mind in persons ordinarily constituted. [31] We find no error in the court's refusal to instruct the jury on the elements of manslaughter-heat of passion. Limited to the record as we are, we find no evidence that defendant's act was other than a deliberate and calculated response to the situation in which he allegedly found himself.