Court Opinion

ID: 9623846
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 06:44:55.093826+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:51:15.341150
License: Public Domain

*139Mr. Justice McWilliams
dissenting.
I dissent for the reasons so ably set forth in the majority opinion.
By way of summary, then, in my view the majority opinion points up very clearly that in the instant case there is no evidence that a “serious and highly provoking injury sufficient to excite an irresistible passion in a reasonable person” was inflicted upon Stephen by David and that as a result thereof Stephen “upon a sudden heat of passion” killed his brother. Therefore, it was not error for the trial court to refuse to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter.
Should the “depantsing” incident be deemed a “serious and highly provoking incident,” it should be noted that there is nothing to indicate that it was David who did the “depantsing” and furthermore this incident occurred about two years before the homicide.