Opinion ID: 2088455
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Propriety of the Jury Instruction on Adequate Provocation as it Relates to Depraved Indifference Murder

Text: The defendant asserts that the trial justice erred in giving an instruction on adequate provocation manslaughter relative to Count II; that the instruction confused the jury; that the trial justice failed to eliminate the confusion in responding to the jury's request for reinstruction; and that the court's denial of his request for a mistrial constituted an abuse of discretion. We find no merit to any of these contentions. In his charge the trial justice provided the jury with separate instructions as to each count. He directed that the jury consider each count separately and distinctly, including separate consideration of any lesser included offenses, and that it return verdicts consistent with this method of deliberation. On Count II, the trial justice instructed the jury that in order to return a verdict of guilty, it had to find beyond a reasonable doubt, first, that the death-producing conduct of the defendant must be conduct which by its very nature creates a very high degree of risk that the conduct will result in serious bodily injury, second, that the conduct objectively must reflect depraved indifference to the value of human life, and [t]he third fact necessary for a conviction under the depraved indifference charge again is the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that at the time of the death, the Defendant either was not under the influence of extreme anger, or that if he were under such influence, it was not brought about by adequate provocation as I've already defined that term. . . . . . [I]f you conclude that the State has proven the first two facts beyond a reasonable doubt, but has failed to prove the third fact that the Defendant's acts causing death were not done while he was under the influence of extreme anger, or that if he was under such influence, it was brought about by adequate provocation, then you should find the Defendant guilty of manslaughter on Count Two. The law in existence at the time the defendant committed the crime, P.L.1983, ch. 372 (codified at 17-A M.R.S.A. § 201(3), (4) and (5) (Supp.1985-1986)), provides that adequate provocation is an affirmative defense under 201(1)(A). [5] Adequate provocation is not an affirmative defense, and has no application, to depraved indifference murder, section 201(1)(B), (1-A). Apparently, the trial justice charged the jury under the prior law that treated adequate provocation as a palliating punishment category under 17-A M.R.S.A. § 203(1)(B), (2) (1983) repealed by P.L.1983, chs. 372 and 480, § B, 23. Section 203(1)(B), formerly provided: 1. A person is guilty of manslaughter if he: . . . . . B. Causes the death of another human being under circumstances which would otherwise be murder except that the actor causes the death while under the influence of extreme anger or extreme fear brought about by adequate provocation. The instruction given by the trial justice was far more favorable to the defendant than that to which he was legally entitled. As a result, the defendant cannot be heard to complain of an error that worked to his advantage. See State v. Flash, 418 A.2d 158, 163 (Me.1980); State v. Heald, 292 A.2d 200, 201-202 (Me.1972). The defendant next asserts that the substance of the adequate provocation instruction pertaining to depraved indifference murder was confusing and misleading. After a careful review of the jury instructions, we find no merit in the defendant's argument. The defendant also contends that the trial justice committed reversible error in reinstructing the jury. Shortly after the jury retired, the court received a note from the jury asking for a copy of the instructions because it was confused about all the elements. The court informed the jury that the instructions were not in a form where it can be given to you in writing. The defendant had previously objected to the charge being written out for the jury's use. Eighty minutes later, the jury notified the court that it was confused about the elements of the crime. The trial justice recalled the jury and repeated his charge on the elements of the two alternative forms of murder and the lesser included offenses. The defendant objected claiming that he was prejudiced by the reinstruction on only certain portions of the original charge. The trial justice overruled the objection. Moreover, he declined to give the defendant's requested instructions because they did not accurately state the law. [6] The jury again retired for further deliberation. Ninety minutes later the jury by note informed the trial justice that we have more questions on Count II, particularly mental responsibility. The justice offered to re-read his previous instructions pertaining to Count II. The defendant objected and moved for a mistrial on the ground that the jury was confused. The justice denied the request and re-read his instructions on Count II. The jury again retired and fifteen minutes later, returned its verdict. We reject the defendant's contention that the trial justice erred in reinstructing the jury. The decision of the trial justice in such matters is subject to review only for abuse of discretion. See State v. Turner, 495 A.2d 1211, 1214-15 (Me.1985). Here, the trial justice limited his reinstructions to what the jury requested. Furthermore, he emphasized to the jury the need for it to consider all the other instructions as well. That he utilized the same explanatory language does not of itself render the reinstructions deficient. We conclude that the justice acted well within the bounds of his discretion. We similarly discern no merit in the defendant's contention that the trial justice abused his discretion by refusing to grant a mistrial. The trial justice has broad discretion to determine whether to grant a motion for a mistrial. See, e.g., State v. Henderson, 435 A.2d 1106, 1108 (Me.1981). That discretion was not abused here. The jury had not indicated that it was hopelessly confused by the instructions as given. Instead, it sought reinstructions on several elements of the alternative forms of murder, which were provided. The trial justice acted within his discretion in his denial of the motion for a mistrial.