Also known as: heat of passion · heat-of-passion defense · heat-of-passion · sudden heat of passion
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A doctrine mitigating an intentional killing from murder to voluntary manslaughter when the defendant killed in the heat of passion upon adequate provocation. The provocation must be of a kind that would cause an ordinary person to experience a sudden and intense passion sufficient to overwhelm self-control. The defendant must have actually been provoked and must not have cooled off before acting.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Hunter Hughes learned at a company party that his coworker had removed his name from patent filings. The coworker then punched Hughes's brother in the face. Hughes grabbed a laptop stand and struck the coworker moments later when she reached into her bag. The battery on his brother supplied adequate provocation that kept Hughes in the grip of passion without time to cool.
Hakeem Harris discovered his spouse with another person after work. He completed duties at a second location, drove home, received text messages, and then located the other person hours later at a bar. The passage of time allowed a reasonable cooling-off period so the killing remained murder rather than voluntary manslaughter.
Hilda Hernandez attended a late meeting where her supervisor grabbed her collar and slapped her. She immediately struck back with a concealed poker she had brought for protection. The sudden battery met the standard for adequate provocation and left no interval for cooling.
Hyun Han killed during an argument after sudden adequate provocation and sought to prove he acted in the heat of passion to reduce the charge. The jurisdiction placed the burden on him to establish the mitigating circumstance by a preponderance of the evidence. The allocation of that burden did not violate due process because it did not require him to disprove an element of the crime.
Harriet Hamilton used a deadly instrument on a vital area during a confrontation after adequate provocation. The factfinder could infer intent to kill from that use. The inference supported malice aforethought unless heat of passion mitigation applied on the facts.
Henry Harrison claimed heat of passion after a sudden attack with adequate provocation. The jurisdiction treated the absence of provocation as a sentencing factor rather than an element of murder. The allocation did not shift the burden of proving malice beyond a reasonable doubt.
The provocation must be of a kind that would cause an ordinary person to experience sudden and intense passion. The defendant must actually have been provoked. An objectively reasonable person would not have had time to cool off. The defendant in fact did not cool off before the killing.
Supporting sources
Yes. Catching one's spouse in the act of adultery is a classic category of adequate provocation at common law. The discovery must occur suddenly and the killing must follow before a reasonable cooling-off period.
…defendant of proving, in rebutting the statutory presumption, that he acted with a lesser degree of culpability, such as in the heat of passion, to win a reduction in the offense from murder to manslaughter (and thus a reduction of the maximum punishment of 20 years). The State had posited in Mullaney that requiring a defendant…
…Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the absence of the heat of passion on
…manslaughter, if they found beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant did the killing without malice or deliberation, but upon a sudden heat of passion
…murder is in the first degree if committed in cold blood, and is murder in the second degree if committed on impulse or in the sudden heat of passion
…deliberation must show that the determination to kill was reached calmly and “in cold blood” rather than under impulse or the heat of passion
Supporting sources
No. Mere words, trivial battery, and past wrongs are legally inadequate to support the heat of passion defense. Only serious battery, threats of deadly force, or catching a spouse in adultery typically qualify.
Supporting sources
If a reasonable person would have cooled off between the provocation and the killing, the defense fails even if the defendant remained subjectively inflamed. The facts must show both that an ordinary person would still be under the influence of passion and that the defendant in fact had not cooled.
Supporting sources
Yes. A serious battery inflicted on the defendant or a close relative is recognized as adequate provocation. The relationship strengthens the claim that the defendant was actually inflamed by the attack.
Supporting sources