MD MPJI-Cr 4:17.4 Homicide — First Degree Premeditated MURDER, SECOND DEGREE SPECIFIC INTENT MURDER, AND VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER (HOT BLOODED RESPONSE TO LEGALLY ADEQUATE PROVOCATION)

Maryland Criminal Pattern Jury Instructions (MSBA)
CHAPTER FOUR CRIMINAL OFFENSES
HOMICIDE–FIRST DEGREE PREMEDITATED MURDER, SECOND DEGREE SPECIFIC INTENT MURDER, AND VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER (HOT BLOODED RESPONSE TO LEGALLY ADEQUATE PROVOCATION)
MPJI-Cr 4:17.4

The defendant is charged with the crime of murder. This charge includes first degree murder, second degree murder, and voluntary manslaughter.

FIRST DEGREE MURDER

First degree murder is the intentional killing of another person with willfulness, deliberation, and premeditation. In order to convict the defendant of first degree murder, the State must prove:

(1) that the defendant caused the death of (name);

(2) that the killing was willful, deliberate, and premeditated; and

(3) that there were no mitigating circumstances.

Willful means that the defendant actually intended to kill (name). Deliberate means that the defendant was conscious of the intent to kill. Premeditated means that the defendant thought about the killing and that there was enough time before the killing, though it may only have been brief, for the defendant to consider the decision whether or not to kill and enough time to weigh the reasons for and against the choice. The premeditated intent to kill must be formed before the killing.

SECOND DEGREE MURDER

Second degree murder is the killing of another person with either the intent to kill or the intent to inflict such serious bodily harm that death would be the likely result. Second degree murder does not require premeditation or deliberation. In order to convict the defendant of second degree murder, the State must prove:

(1) that the defendant caused the death of (name);

(2) that the defendant engaged in the deadly conduct either with the intent to kill or with the intent to inflict such serious bodily harm that death would be the likely result; and

(3) that there were no mitigating circumstances.

VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER (HOT BLOODED RESPONSE TO LEGALLY ADEQUATE PROVOCATION)

Voluntary manslaughter is an intentional killing, which would be murder, but is not murder because the defendant acted in hot blooded response to legally adequate provocation. This does not result in a verdict of not guilty, but rather reduces the level of guilt from murder to manslaughter. You should only consider voluntary manslaughter if you find that the defendant had the intent to kill.

You have heard evidence that the defendant killed (name) in hot blooded response to legally adequate provocation. In order to convict the defendant of murder, the State must prove that the defendant did not act in hot blooded response to legally adequate provocation. If the defendant had the intent to kill and acted in hot blooded response to legally adequate provocation, the verdict should be guilty of voluntary manslaughter and not guilty of murder.

Killing in hot blooded response to legally adequate provocation is a mitigating circumstance. In order for this mitigating circumstance to exist in this case, the following five factors must be present:

(1) the defendant reacted to something in a hot blooded rage, that is, the defendant actually became enraged;

(2) the rage was caused by something the law recognizes as legally adequate provocation, that is, something that would cause a reasonable person to become enraged enough to kill or inflict serious bodily harm. The only act that you can find to be adequate provocation under the evidence in this case is [a battery by the victim upon the defendant] [a fight between the victim and the defendant] [an unlawful warrantless arrest of the defendant by the victim, which the defendant knew or reasonably believed was unlawful];

(3) the defendant was still enraged when [he] [she] killed the victim, that is, the defendant’s rage had not cooled by the time of the killing;

(4) there was not enough time between the provocation and the killing for a reasonable person’s rage to cool; and

(5) the victim was the person who provoked the rage.

In order to convict the defendant of murder, the State must prove that the mitigating circumstance of hot blooded provocation was not present in this case. This means that the State must persuade you, beyond a reasonable doubt, that at least one of the five factors was absent. If the State has failed to persuade you that at least one of the five factors was absent, you cannot find the defendant guilty of murder, but may find the defendant guilty of voluntary manslaughter.

In order to convict the defendant of murder, the State must prove that the defendant did not act in hot blooded response to legally adequate provocation. If the defendant did act in hot blooded response to legally adequate provocation, the verdict should be guilty of voluntary manslaughter and not guilty of murder.

Notes on Use

Use this instruction if the defendant is charged with first degree premeditated murder under MD. CODE ANN., CRIMINAL LAW I § 2-201 (2021) (hereinafter CRIM. LAW I or II § ), second degree specific intent murder under CRIM. LAW I § 2-204, and/or voluntary manslaughter under CRIM. LAW I § 2-207, but only if there is an issue of mitigation generated by evidence of hot blooded response to legally adequate provocation.

The court should consider using a special verdict sheet that instructs the jury that it may consider voluntary manslaughter if it finds a specific intent to kill and may not consider voluntary manslaughter if it finds only the intent to commit serious bodily harm. See Selby v. State, 361 Md. 319 (2000) .

[230610]