350 P.3d 805
Ariz.2015Background
- Christepher Lua was tried for two counts of attempted second-degree murder; the trial court instructed the jury on attempted provocation manslaughter over his objection and he was convicted on both counts.
- The court of appeals affirmed; this Court granted review to resolve whether provocation manslaughter may be instructed in a second-degree murder prosecution.
- Statutory scheme: second-degree murder requires causing death without premeditation with intent/knowledge/recklessness; provocation manslaughter is defined as second-degree murder committed "upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion resulting from adequate provocation by the victim."
- Under the elements test, provocation manslaughter contains the same elements as second-degree murder plus an additional mitigating circumstance (adequate provocation), so it is not a lesser-included offense in the strict elements sense.
- The Court examined statutory history, policy considerations, and precedent to decide whether a jury may nonetheless be instructed on provocation manslaughter when supported by evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a provocation-manslaughter instruction may be given in a second-degree murder trial when the evidence supports it | State: Court may instruct jury on provocation manslaughter when evidence supports it | Lua: Instruction improper unless provocation manslaughter is separately charged or defendant consents to an amendment | Court: Yes — trial court may give the instruction if evidence supports it |
| Whether provocation manslaughter is a lesser-included offense of second-degree murder under the elements test | State: Practical and historical context allows instruction despite elements test | Lua: Peak controls; provocation manslaughter is not a lesser-included offense because it adds a circumstance | Court: It is not a lesser-included offense under the elements test (it adds the provocation circumstance) |
| Whether giving the instruction without a separate charge or amendment violates procedural rules or the Sixth Amendment | State: Defendant had adequate notice and rules do not bar instruction on less serious offense when evidence supports it | Lua: Instruction constructively amended indictment; violated Ariz. R. Crim. P. and Sixth Amendment notice | Court: No violation — Rules 13.2(c)/23.3 govern necessarily-included offenses and were not implicated; defendant had actual notice and no prejudice shown |
| Effect of LeBlanc instruction requirement on provocation-manslaughter verdicts | Lua: LeBlanc may prevent juries from reaching provocation issue if given | State: Instruction can be framed to elicit consideration of provocation | Court: Clarifies appropriate instruction language (RAJI 11.04) to ensure jurors consider provocation and, if unanimous on provocation, convict of manslaughter rather than murder |
Key Cases Cited
- Peak v. Acuna, 203 Ariz. 83 (2002) (discusses whether provocation manslaughter is a lesser-included offense under elements test)
- State v. Miranda, 200 Ariz. 67 (2001) (requirements for instructing jury on offenses other than charged)
- State v. Valenzuela, 194 Ariz. 404 (1999) (trial court must submit verdict forms for necessarily included offenses)
- State v. Gipson, 229 Ariz. 484 (2012) (approved provocation-manslaughter instruction in murder trials; addresses notice and instruction issues)
- State v. LeBlanc, 186 Ariz. 437 (1996) (requires reasonable-efforts instruction on deliberations when lesser-included offenses are submitted)
- State v. Freeney, 223 Ariz. 110 (2010) (discusses when amendment during trial violates notice/Sixth Amendment)
- State v. Delahanty, 226 Ariz. 502 (2011) (requires instructions for lesser offenses in first-degree murder trials when evidence supports them)
- State v. Noleen, 142 Ariz. 101 (1984) (accused entitled to manslaughter instruction if evidence shows heat of passion)