Opinion ID: 1658871
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Did the trial court err in granting manslaughter instructions?

Text: The appellant argues that the evidence at trial did not warrant manslaughter instructions S-1, S-3, S-4, and S-6. Instruction S-1 described the term manslaughter. Instruction S-3 instructed the jury that in the event they failed to find that the state had proven the essential elements of the crime of murder, that the jury could then proceed with deliberations to consider the lesser crime of manslaughter. Instruction S-4 defined the essential elements of the crime of manslaughter. Instruction S-6 provided a form of the verdict in the event the jury found the defendant guilty of manslaughter. Heat of passion manslaughter is described in Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-35 (1972): [1] The killing of a human being, without malice, in the heat of passion, but in a cruel or unusual manner, or by the use of a dangerous weapon, without authority of law, and not in necessary self-defense, shall be manslaughter. Heat of Passion is defined as: In criminal law, a state of violent and uncontrollable rage engendered by a blow or certain other provocation given, which will reduce a homicide from the grade of murder to that of manslaughter. Passion or anger suddenly aroused at the time by some immediate and reasonable provocation, by words or acts of one at the time. The term includes an emotional state of mind characterized by anger, rage, hatred, furious resentment or terror. Black's Law Dictionary, 650 (5th.Ed. 1979). At trial, Mrs. Mullins testified that during the confrontation preceding the shooting of her husband, Mr. Mullins grabbed her by the hair and pulled her down to the ground and that he pulled her by the hair over to a picnic table. Mrs. Mullins testified further that once the deceased set her on the picnic table, he drew her head back, raised his fist to her face, and said, You son-of-a-bitch, I'm going to beat you to death. I'm just going to kill your ass tonight. Id. The testimony of Mrs. Mullins concerning the physical violence inflicted by the deceased gave rise to the manslaughter instruction. It was the province of the jury to decide if the appellant actually killed in the heat of passion.