Court Opinion

ID: 9852922
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:39:08.397071+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:37.473116
License: Public Domain

Sears-Collins, Justice,
concurring.
I concur in Div. 3 and in the judgment solely on the ground that a review of the record demonstrates that the evidence did not authorize a charge on voluntary manslaughter. I have grave doubts, however, whether the jury charge on malice murder, which the majority does not analyze, conveyed to the jury that it had to find an absence of provocation before it could find that McGill acted with malice. I therefore have concerns about the majority’s conclusion that the jury’s verdict of malice murder means the jury adequately considered the issue whether there was sufficient provocation to reduce the crime to voluntary manslaughter and thus negated any sequential charge problems.