Murder versus Manslaughter
What is the Difference Between Murder and Manslaughter?
A common question I have heard is, What is the difference between murder and manslaughter? Although laws vary from state-to-state, California law provides a good example for generally understanding the differences.
A defendant’s state of mind when he kills dictates the distinction between murder and manslaughter, as well as the different degrees of murder.
What is Murder?
Murder in California is a killing with "malice aforethought," often referred to as malice. Malice can be found when the defendant intended to kill. That is called express malice. There is also implied malice. Implied malice can be found when the defendant intentionally committed an act, the natural consequences of which were dangerous to human life, the defendant knew the act was dangerous, and acted with a conscious disregard for human life.
If either express or implied malice is found, the defendant committed murder. Murders are separated into degrees, first and second. First-degree murder is the worst kind and carries the highest penalties. When a murder is committed willfully with premeditation and deliberation, it is first-degree murder.
The phrase, "willfully and with premeditation and deliberation," is commonly used, but its meaning may not be so clear. Willfully in this context simply means the defendant intended to kill. Premeditation is where the defendant decided to kill before committing the act of killing. Deliberation means the defendant carefully weighed the pros and cons of his choice and knew the consequences of his act.
First degree murder may be found in other ways as well, such as using an explosive device or lying-in-wait, but those are not discussed here.
What is Voluntary Manslaughter?
Voluntary manslaughter is an unlawful killing without malice, but with a "conscious disregard for human life." There are generally two ways for what would otherwise be a murder to be reduced to voluntary manslaughter: 1) heat of passion, or 2) imperfect defense of self or others.
A murder can be reduced to voluntary manslaughter if the defendant acted in the heat of passion. A killing in the heat of passion requires: 1) that the defendant was provoked, 2) that the provocation caused the defendant to act rashly and under the influence of intense emotion, obscuring his judgment and reasoning, and 3) the provocation would have caused the average person to act rashly.
In other words, to qualify for heat-of-passion voluntary manslaughter, the jury must find the defendant was so provoked by what the victim did, and reasonably so, that he killed out of intense emotion rather than deliberate judgment.
Here are some examples of acts that are sufficiently provocative to reduce murder to voluntary manslaughter. Here are some examples of acts that will not reduce murder to manslaughter under a heat of passion theory.
Voluntary manslaughter may also be found if the defendant acted in what is called imperfect self-defense. Most people are familiar with the concept of self-defense. Generally, if someone attacks you, and you are in imminent danger of death or great bodily injury, you may kill your attacker. If your fear of such danger was reasonable, the killing is completely justified, and you should be found not guilty.
If, however, the defendant's fear is unreasonable, that is called imperfect self-defense. In other words, if the defendant actually believes he is in imminent danger of death or great bodily injury, but his belief is unreasonable, and he kills, that would be voluntary manslaughter.
(For more, check out my blog post on the difference between self-defense and imperfect self-defense.)
Determining a defendant’s state of mind at the time of the crime is often a difficult task. But that is the key to deciding whether a defendant committed first-degree murder, second-degree murder, or voluntary manslaughter.
Voluntary manslaughter is not technically a defense, but a lesser included offense to murder. However, voluntary manslaughter operates more like an affirmative defense because it is usually the defendant who offers evidence supporting voluntary manslaughter in an attempt to reduce the crime from murder.
A common question I have heard is, What is the difference between murder and manslaughter? Although laws vary from state-to-state, California law provides a good example for generally understanding the differences.
A defendant’s state of mind when he kills dictates the distinction between murder and manslaughter, as well as the different degrees of murder.
What is Murder?
Murder in California is a killing with "malice aforethought," often referred to as malice. Malice can be found when the defendant intended to kill. That is called express malice. There is also implied malice. Implied malice can be found when the defendant intentionally committed an act, the natural consequences of which were dangerous to human life, the defendant knew the act was dangerous, and acted with a conscious disregard for human life.
If either express or implied malice is found, the defendant committed murder. Murders are separated into degrees, first and second. First-degree murder is the worst kind and carries the highest penalties. When a murder is committed willfully with premeditation and deliberation, it is first-degree murder.
The phrase, "willfully and with premeditation and deliberation," is commonly used, but its meaning may not be so clear. Willfully in this context simply means the defendant intended to kill. Premeditation is where the defendant decided to kill before committing the act of killing. Deliberation means the defendant carefully weighed the pros and cons of his choice and knew the consequences of his act.
First degree murder may be found in other ways as well, such as using an explosive device or lying-in-wait, but those are not discussed here.
What is Voluntary Manslaughter?
Voluntary manslaughter is an unlawful killing without malice, but with a "conscious disregard for human life." There are generally two ways for what would otherwise be a murder to be reduced to voluntary manslaughter: 1) heat of passion, or 2) imperfect defense of self or others.
A murder can be reduced to voluntary manslaughter if the defendant acted in the heat of passion. A killing in the heat of passion requires: 1) that the defendant was provoked, 2) that the provocation caused the defendant to act rashly and under the influence of intense emotion, obscuring his judgment and reasoning, and 3) the provocation would have caused the average person to act rashly.
In other words, to qualify for heat-of-passion voluntary manslaughter, the jury must find the defendant was so provoked by what the victim did, and reasonably so, that he killed out of intense emotion rather than deliberate judgment.
Here are some examples of acts that are sufficiently provocative to reduce murder to voluntary manslaughter. Here are some examples of acts that will not reduce murder to manslaughter under a heat of passion theory.
Voluntary manslaughter may also be found if the defendant acted in what is called imperfect self-defense. Most people are familiar with the concept of self-defense. Generally, if someone attacks you, and you are in imminent danger of death or great bodily injury, you may kill your attacker. If your fear of such danger was reasonable, the killing is completely justified, and you should be found not guilty.
If, however, the defendant's fear is unreasonable, that is called imperfect self-defense. In other words, if the defendant actually believes he is in imminent danger of death or great bodily injury, but his belief is unreasonable, and he kills, that would be voluntary manslaughter.
(For more, check out my blog post on the difference between self-defense and imperfect self-defense.)
Determining a defendant’s state of mind at the time of the crime is often a difficult task. But that is the key to deciding whether a defendant committed first-degree murder, second-degree murder, or voluntary manslaughter.
Voluntary manslaughter is not technically a defense, but a lesser included offense to murder. However, voluntary manslaughter operates more like an affirmative defense because it is usually the defendant who offers evidence supporting voluntary manslaughter in an attempt to reduce the crime from murder.
|
"[P]rovocation 'closely resembles an affirmative defense' on which evidence is ordinarily presented by the accused, not the People."
--People v. Rios, 23 Cal. 4th 450, 459 (2000) |
For a look at how the differences in mental state between murder and manslaughter can play out in a specific case, check out the All-Things-Criminal Blog post about a highly publicized teen hate crime murder trial.
For more, sign up to get your FREE Writer's Guide: Top 7 Mistakes Made By Writers of Crime, Mystery and Legal Drama.
For more, sign up to get your FREE Writer's Guide: Top 7 Mistakes Made By Writers of Crime, Mystery and Legal Drama.
