Court Opinion

ID: 9695498
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:21:00.763358+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:13.261574
License: Public Domain

Wilkie, J.
(concurring). Although I adhere to my views expressed in the concurring opinion in State v. Hoyt 1 favoring the adoption of the Model Penal Code formulation as the test of provocation under sec. 940.05 (1), Stats., under the facts in this case, even if this different test were to be adopted, a manslaughter verdict should not have been submitted to the jury. Without needlessly repeating the pertinent facts leading up to the homicide as detailed in the majority opinion I would merely observe that, even under the alternative test, there was no reasonable ground for the trier of fact to conclude that the killing was “committed under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance for which there is reasonable explanation or excuse,” 2 where the reasonableness of such explanation or excuse is “determined from the viewpoint of a person in the actor’s situation under the circumstances as he believes them to be.” 3 For these reasons I concur in the result reached by the majority.

 (1964), 21 Wis. (2d) 284, 298-304, 128 N. W. (2d) 645.

 Model Penal Code, p. 126, sec. 210.3 (1) (b) (Official Draft, 1962).

 Ibid.