 |
 |
 |
| |
|
|
State v Dumlao
Intermediate Ct. of App. HA 1986
Author:- Sam Biers
Facts: Vidado Dumlao shot his mother in law Pacita and reckless endangering for shooting his brother in law Pedrito.
Issue: Whether the jury should have been instructed on extreme emotional disturbance rather than reckless as an element of manslaughter?
Holding: Yes
Procedure: Jury trial found him guilty of Murder of Pacita and Reckless Endangering of Pedrito. Reversed and remanded.
Rule: Crimes of murder in the first or second degree, absent malice, should reduce to manslaughter, evidence by extreme emotional or mental disturbances as an extenuating circum. Extenuating circumstances 1) extreme mental or emotional disturbance, AND 2) an objective/subjective test of the reasonableness of the explanation for the disturbance.
Court Rationale: Extreme emotional or mental disturbance by MPC defines the provocation element. The individual a) has no mental disease or defect that rises to the level of insanity or diminished capac. b) is exposed to an extremely unusual and overwhelming stress, AND c) has an extreme emotional reaction to it, as a result there is a loss of self-control . . .
The provocation does not need to emanate from the victim. As judged from the def’s personal viewpoint, the def suffered from an extreme emotional or mental disturbance, (as Dr. Golden explained as an expert witness at trial), that did not rise to the level of insanity or diminished capacity; in combination with his extreme and irrational jealousy concerning his wife. The jury should have been instructed differently as requested by Dumlao.