Adultery and other "Adequate Provocations"

Case: Rowland v. State, 35 So. 826(1904) [p 350-351]

Summary: Rowland catches his wife committing adultery, and shoots the guy, but kills her instead. The jury
instruction from the lower court said that "murder is the killing of a human being without authority of law, . . . ,
when done with the deliberate design to effect the death of the person killed." Rowland was convicted of
murder and appealed. This court explained that the charge should be reduced to manslaughter, because the
common law stated that adultery is adequate provocation and so the killed was justifiable.

Class Notes
• Common law - adultery is provocation.
• As a matter of law, the uncontested facts of this case say that its manslaughter, not murder. Because the
intent to kill was formed as a result of catching his wife in the act of adultery.
_________________________________________

Notes: [p. 352-358]

• Trend is to relax categorical rules - Previously, the provocation by adultery required proof that Δ actually
witnessed the physical act of intercourse. But by 19th century, a more realistic view of provocation was
taken by the courts:
o Price v. State (1885) - held that positive proof the Δ actually witnessed the act are not required,
and are rarely attainable. As a crime, adultery can be proven by circumstantial testimony. Like, if
it's really obvious what was going on - there would be no other reason for a man to be in wife's
bed with her, etc.
o Elsmore v. State (1937) - victim was publicly cursing and threatening Δ. When victim started
getting drunk and violent, Δ shot him to death. Held that insulting words or gestures might be
sufficient to constitute adequate cause (provocation) - if the words or gestures would commonly
produce a degree of anger, rage, resentment, or terror in a person of ordinary temper sufficient to
render the mind incapable of cool reflection is manslaughter.
• State v. Yanz (1901) - Δ was mistaken about the adultery - he caught his wife with another under
compromising circumstances, but he was actually wrong. Held that since it was reasonable for him to
believe she was committing adultery, still sufficient provocation because it creates the same emotions as
the wrongful act would.
• Carter v. State (2002) - Δ intended to kill one person (who sufficiently provoked Δ), but instead kills the
provoker, and in the course of the encounter, another person. He was convicted of intentional murder on
the second killing, but voluntary manslaughter on the first. This is because of "transferred intent" - when
killer intends to kill one person, but in the course of the action kills another, the mens rea of intent is
transferred to the second killing. The first killing was ameliorated by the heat of passion justification,
but not the second.

Class Notes
• CL: Categorical, "rule-based"
o There was a rule - what impassioned a reasonable person to kill
o They listed what those provocations were
• Adultery
• physical assault or attack on Δ (not including self-defense) or Δ's family member
• Mutual combat - thought to be mutual decision to fight to the death
• These are about pride/honor. Not about force necessary. Being a man, necessary to
protect price (old-fashioned male pride). It reflects the times.
• Old case - considered adultery as the highest invasion of a man's property. And
only gave a very small punishment.