Maryland Criminal & Immigration Lawyer Blog
A 2022 front-yard fight in Baltimore left one man dead and another on trial for murder. The ensuing case and appeal have broken important new ground in Maryland law, clearly recognizing for the first time that a substantial battery on a close relative may constitute the sort of necessary provocation to turn a possible case of murder to one of voluntary manslaughter. When you are facing charges, these differences — such as between murder and voluntary manslaughter — are often massive, so understanding how to use defenses like hot-blooded response to provocation is crucial. Whatever potential defenses your case may present, an experienced Maryland criminal defense lawyer can help in putting forth the strongest possible case.
Based on that shooting in Baltimore, the state put Theodore on trial for first-degree murder. Neither side disputed that Theodore pulled a gun and shot William in the upper body, causing his fatal injuries.
The case focused not on the shooting itself but the events that led up to that fatal gunshot. Before the shooting took place, an argument began that eventually embroiled Theodore’s wife and William. At one point in the dispute, William punched the wife hard enough that it broke her glasses and knocked her momentarily unconscious. Later in the quarrel, William punched the woman in the face a second time, hitting her hard enough to knock her glasses off her face again. Enraged, Theodore shot William once in the chest, killing him.
Theodore’s defense team contended that he shot in the heat of the moment and requested that the judge give the jury an instruction on voluntary manslaughter. Specifically, the defense wanted the judge to instruct the jury on the law of voluntary manslaughter based on a “hot-blooded response” to a “legally adequate provocation.” The crux of the defense’s argument was that seeing William batter a relative was sufficient provocation.
The defense team focused on this argument because the difference between a murder conviction versus a voluntary manslaughter conviction is massive, specifically, a maximum of a life sentence versus a maximum of ten years.
The trial judge refused to give the requested instruction, and the jury ultimately found Theodore guilty of second-degree murder, for which the court handed down a sentence of 40 years.
The Appellate Court, however, overturned the conviction. The trial judge should have given the jury the instruction the defense requested, and the judge’s failure to do so required granting Theodore a new trial.
A ‘Natural Tendency… to Produce Passion’
Several Appellate Court and Supreme Court rulings generally have laid out the concept that the defense of a “hot-blooded response” applies to any type of provocation “the natural tendency of which is to produce passion in ordinary [people].” The legislature narrowed this defense in 2021, passing a statute that says that the “discovery or perception of, or belief about, another person’s race, color, national origin, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, or disability, whether or not accurate, does not constitute” a legally adequate provocation in this context. The Appellate Court further noted that other states, including New Jersey, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, and Illinois “uniformly have held that a voluntary manslaughter instruction is proper” in scenarios involving a significant battery upon a close relative.
In siding with Theodore, the Appellate Court also highlighted that the batterer need not use a weapon for the battery to be “substantial.” Previous case decisions have decided that “even a blow with the fist may be sufficient to reduce an intentional killing to manslaughter, particularly if it is a blow in the face or a ‘staggering’ blow.” In Theodore’s case, the punches to the wife knocked her glasses off her face, broke them, and caused her to “black out momentarily.” That was enough to constitute a substantial battery.
The court’s decision is essential in recognizing that, for many people, watching someone beat someone close to you (like your spouse or a child) is just as infuriating as being beaten yourself, perhaps even more so. With that in mind, the law now makes it clear that this kind of attack is something that can qualify as provocation and mitigate a defendant’s criminal liability.
If you are facing criminal charges, you need a skilled legal advocate on your side, and you should obtain that representation as soon as possible. Get in touch with the knowledgeable Maryland criminal defense attorneys at Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC. The sooner you retain us, the sooner we can begin developing the strongest possible defense based on the facts and the law of your case. Contact us today at 301-519-2801 or use our online form to schedule your consultation.