State v. HANAMAN, 38 A.3d 1278

Hanaman and the victim began dating in late 2008; relationship volatile with alleged assault and theft accusations.
In Oct 2009 Hanaman was arrested for domestic violence assault; bail required no contact with victim.
Nov 10, 2009: Hanaman violated no-contact bail to pick up the victim to end their relationship and discuss her moving out.
A confrontation over a bag of drug evidence led to a struggle; Hanaman testified he blacked out after seeing a shiny object in the victim’s hand, later discovered to be a knife.
Eight stab wounds to the victim; victim had defensive wounds; Hanaman had no serious injuries.
Court instructed the jury on murder, reckless manslaughter, self-defense, and imperfect self-defense; defense requested instruction on adequate provocation manslaughter which was denied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether adequate provocation manslaughter instruction should be given	Hanaman contends evidence generated adequate provocation.	State argues provocation not legally sufficient and subsumed by self-defense.	No adequate provocation instruction required.
Whether the evidence generated the defense of adequate provocation	Hanaman asserts extreme anger or extreme fear from victim's provocation.	State contends no evidence of extreme anger or fear; provocation not established.	Evidence did not generate the defense; no error.
Whether adequate provocation instruction is subsumed by self-defense	Adequate provocation can coexist with self-defense; should not be subsumed.	Instructions on self-defense sufficiently cover the issue; separate instruction would confuse.	Self-defense instructions subsumed adequate provocation under these facts; no error.

State v. Bridges, 2004 ME 102, 854 A.2d 855 (Me. 2004) (framework for evaluating whether to instruct on an affirmative defense)
State v. Warmke, 2005 ME 99, 879 A.2d 30 (Me. 2005) (test for generating an affirmative defense instruction)
State v. Pulsifer, 1999 ME 24, 724 A.2d 1234 (Me. 1999) (adequate provocation elements and provocation not induced by defendant)
State v. Rainey, 580 A.2d 682 (Me. 1990) (provocation analysis and defendant-induced circumstances)
State v. Doody, 432 A.2d 399 (Me. 1981) (extreme fear/anger evidentiary standard)
State v. Savage, 573 A.2d 25 (Me. 1990) (self-defense and provocation jury instructions)
State v. Barretto, 2008 ME 121, 953 A.2d 1138 (Me. 2008) (instruction completeness and potential for confusion)
State v. Grant, 418 A.2d 154 (Me. 1980) (imperfect self-defense—effects on culpability)