People v. Spurlin (1984)

People v. Spurlin, 156 Cal. App. 3d 119 (1984), is a California Court of Appeal decision on the provocation element of voluntary manslaughter.^[1][2] CourtListener shows it cited by 28 opinions, including several decisions of the California Supreme Court.^[3][4][5][6]

Background

Clyde Richard Spurlin appealed jury convictions for the first-degree murder of his nine-year-old son and the second-degree murder of his wife. The killings took place on November 2, 1982.^[1] According to the opinion, he killed his wife after a heated argument and then killed his son, who had been asleep.^[1] The opinion says he later returned voluntarily to San Diego, confessed, and described the events to the jury.^[1][7]

Issue and holding

On appeal, Spurlin argued that the trial court should have instructed the jury on heat-of-passion voluntary manslaughter for his son's death. His theory was that the passion provoked by his wife carried over to the second killing.^[1] The court rejected this. Following the common-law rule, it held that "the provocation must have been given by the person who was killed," subject only to narrow exceptions, such as an accidental killing of the wrong person or a victim who aided the provoker.^[8] Because the son had slept through the evening, he could not have provoked the defendant, so no manslaughter instruction was required for his death.^[1][8]

The court also noted that California had abolished the diminished-capacity defense by statute (Penal Code §§ 25 and 28). That closed off the argument that extreme emotional disturbance from any source could negate malice.^[8] In a footnote it contrasted the Model Penal Code, which does not require the provocation to come from the victim.^[1] It found substantial evidence of planning and premeditation to support the first-degree murder conviction, and it affirmed the judgment. Justice Butler wrote the opinion, with Presiding Justice Gerald Brown and Justice Cologne concurring. The California Supreme Court denied a hearing on August 9, 1984.^[1][8]

Use in later law

The California Supreme Court has cited the decision on several points. In People v. Saille (1991) it cited Spurlin on how Penal Code sections 25 and 28 fit together after diminished capacity was abolished.^[4] In People v. Steele (2002) it quoted Spurlin's statement that provocation and heat of passion are not the same thing as diminished capacity.^[5] In People v. Carasi (2008) it cited Spurlin for the rule that the victim must taunt the defendant or otherwise start the provocation.^[6] The case also turns up in law-school study materials. One Quizlet flashcard set on heat-of-passion manslaughter lists it as the example of a defendant who intentionally kills a victim who did not provoke him.^[9]