Concept

Actual Cooling Off

Common-law adequate provocation (heat of passion)

Actual Cooling Off

The fourth and last step turns from the ordinary person back to the defendant. Steps one through three have established that the event was adequate, that the defendant was in fact provoked, and that not enough time passed for a reasonable person's passion to subside. Step four adds a final requirement: the defendant must in fact not have cooled off between the provocation and the killing.¹ The subject matter is the same as in step three, namely whether the passion had faded by the time of the fatal act, but the person being measured has changed. Step three measures a reasonable person's passion against the clock, and step four measures this defendant's.

Because the two cooling steps ask about different people, a defendant can clear one and fail the other, and the manslaughter claim survives only if both are cleared. The failures run in opposite directions:

Step three fails when enough time passed for a reasonable person to cool, even though this defendant had not cooled.²
Step four fails when this defendant had in fact cooled, even though a reasonable person would not yet have done so.³

The first failure closes the window on a defendant who keeps brooding past the point at which an ordinary person would have settled, and the second closes it on a defendant who settled sooner than an ordinary person would have. Even the minority view that abandons the reasonable-time test leaves this inquiry in place, since it makes the defendant's own failure to cool the whole question.⁴

The reason for the second failure follows from what the doctrine mitigates. A provoked killing is treated more leniently because a passion disturbed the control of reason, so the defendant must still have been under that disturbance when the blow fell. One who recovers from the affront with unusual quickness and then kills in full possession of his faculties has made a choice with reason in command, and it is no help to that defendant that an ordinary person would not have regained control in the same interval.⁵ The underlying rationale is that a person whose passions are no longer engaged merits the same condemnation and punishment as one who kills with no provocation at all.⁶ The objective steps fix what the law is willing to excuse in people generally, and the subjective steps then check that this defendant was in fact someone whose reason was overborne. That is why a person of exceptional restraint receives no discount and is held to a higher standard than a more excitable one.⁷

Step four also has to be kept apart from step two, since both examine the defendant's own mind. Step two asks whether a passion arose at all, and step four asks whether that passion was already gone by the time of the killing. A defendant who was enraged by the provocation but calm again before firing therefore passes step two and fails step four, with the same consequence as a defendant who was never enraged: the killing was done in cold blood, with time and capacity to premeditate and deliberate, so where murder is divided into degrees the defendant is a candidate for first-degree murder.⁸ The later section on applying the four steps takes up that grading in full.

Hypothetical Illustration

A man seriously beats the defendant's brother in a parking lot. Told of it by phone, the defendant arrives ten minutes later and shoots the attacker. Assume a reasonable person would not have cooled in ten minutes, so step three is met. In the first version the defendant arrives shaking and shouting threats and has to be pulled back before firing, so the passion that began with the news is still running, step four is met, and the killing is voluntary manslaughter if the earlier steps hold. In the second version the defendant was furious at the news but calmed within a few minutes, then drove carefully, parked, waited for the attacker to walk out of a bar, and spoke in an even voice before firing. The provocation and the interval are identical, yet this defendant had in fact cooled, so step four fails and the killing is murder.

Proof of actual cooling comes from the defendant's conduct and demeanor in the interval. Methodical preparation, an even tone, a pause to pick the moment, and calm statements of intent all suggest that reason had resumed control, while shaking, shouting, and an unbroken confrontation suggest that the passion was still running. The same conduct can support two separate arguments, one at step three about what a reasonable person would have done and one at step four about what this defendant did, and an answer should keep them apart. Step four also assumes that step three was cleared, so the facts that matter here are those showing that this defendant had regained control within an interval short enough that an ordinary person would still have been enraged.

Exam Analysis Steps

Because step four asks about the defendant's own recovery after the objective steps have been cleared, it is best run by reading the interval for signs of regained control. The steps are these:

Confirm that steps one through three are met, since a claim already lost on adequacy or on a reasonable person's cooling time never reaches the defendant's own state.
Fix the moment of the fatal act and ask what the facts show about the defendant's emotional state at that moment, as opposed to the moment of the provocation.
Look for facts showing recovered control, such as methodical preparation, an even tone, or a pause to choose the moment, and for facts showing continuing passion, such as shaking, shouting, or an unbroken confrontation.
If the defendant was still in the grip of the passion, treat step four as met and conclude voluntary manslaughter when the other steps hold; if the defendant had regained control, conclude murder and, where degrees exist, point toward first-degree.

The trap is stopping once a reasonable person would not have cooled. A student who concludes that ten minutes is too short for an ordinary person to calm down has answered step three and nothing more, and the stem often plants a detail of composure in the interval for the purpose of testing step four. The reverse point matters just as much: showing that the defendant was calm by the time of the killing ends the claim without any need to show that a reasonable person would also have calmed, because either failure alone leaves the killing murder.

Actual Cooling Off

Endnotes9