Professional Documents
Culture Documents
People v. Walker
People v. Walker
People v. Walker
Facts: Δ was approached by the victim, who was drunk and demanded that they gamble. When Δ refused, the
victim started becoming violent and attempting to cut Δ and others with his knife. There was a fight, and then Δ
threw a brick at victim's head, and he fell down. At that point, Δ took the victim's hand with the knife still in it,
and cut the victim's throat. Δ was convicted of murder. He now appeals, arguing that at the most, this was
manslaughter, not murder.
Holding: held that Δ guilty of voluntary manslaughter, and remanded with directions to enter a finding of guilty
of voluntary manslaughter, and impose a sentence appropriate. Idea is that murder requires malice aforethought
- an intent to kill. Here, the victim actually started it, and attacked the Δ first. Victim did actually cut the Δ, and
this was provocation, and during the course of the fight, it was a murder of passion. Δ did not have time to cool
off, it all happened very quickly, within 15 minutes. The offense is not murder, but manslaughter.
Class Notes
• There was intent, but because there was provocation.
• Self-defense - throwing brick was self-defense, but once he has victim's knife, no longer self-defense.
• Provocation – mitigation
o At CL, provocation negates malice. So no longer murder, but manslaughter
_________________________________________
Class Notes
• Rationale
o Retributive
• Partial excuse - persons actions not reflective of their chracter, wrong doing. They were
out of control, they didn’t intend.
o Utilitarianism
• Can't do much - he didn’t think it through too much.
o Excuse v. Justification
• Insanity - as a defense, it’s an excuse. We don’t punish them because we don’t think they
have control over their conduct. We can't deter them, and its not reflective of their
character. We don’t like what they do, but we excuse it.
• Self-defense - justification. Not just excuse, there was justification
• Provocation - unclear whether excuse or justification
Partial Excuse - lost control over facilities
Partial justification - in part, what he did was justified. We want to deter it, but not
same as murder, so lesser punishment.
• Not as wrongful as a murder of an innocent (here, he asked for it)
• Burden of proof
o Mullaney v. Wilbur (not in reading) (1975)
• In ME, murder required malice. The statute defined malice as deliberate and unprovoked
cruelty.
• Jury instruction said: Δ presumed to have acted with malice unless he proved
provocation. Burden of proof on Δ.
Unconstitutional - statute defined malice as unprovoked cruelty, so government
had to prove it.
o Patterson v. NY
• Statute provided all intentional homicides are murder. Also provided an affirmative
defense of provocation.
• Jury instruction: jury instruction - government proves intent. But Δ has to show
provocation.
Constitutional, because statute says provocation is an affirmative defense.
o Key: provocation negates malice.
• If statute says government has to prove malice, they also have to prove there was no
provocation.
• If statute says all intentional homicides are murder, then ok to shift burden to Δ to prove
affirmative defense of provocation.