Opinion ID: 2164543
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Rejection of Manslaughter

Text: Defendant asserts that the Superior Court justice rejected the alternative of a conviction for manslaughter under 17-A M.R.S.A. § 203(1)(B) [3] because he concluded, defendant claims, that defendant's mental condition was not that of a reasonable man. He thus argues that the Superior Court justice applied an incorrect legal standard by failing to evaluate the reasonableness of defendant's reactions on the day of the shooting in light of the particular circumstances as known to defendant. Defendant sought no special findings of fact, as he was entitled to do, M.R.Crim.P. 23(c), nor did he urge the justice to state the conclusion of law on which he was rejecting the manslaughter alternative. There is nothing in the record to suggest that the Superior Court justice committed any error whatsoever. We must assume that he properly applied the law laid down by section 203 and determined upon the record as a fact that when defendant killed his wife he was not under the influence of extreme anger . . . brought about by adequate provocation. 17-A M.R.S.A. § 203(1)(B). On this record the justice was fully justified in making such a finding beyond a reasonable doubt.