Raymond L. Middleton, Warden v. Sally Marie Mcneil (541 U.S. 433)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided May 3, 2004 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 541 U.S. 433 · 124 S. Ct. 1830
- Decided
- May 3, 2004
- Term
- October Term 2003
- Vote
- 9–0
- Issue area
- Criminal Procedure
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Per Curiam. I Respondent Sally Marie McNeil killed her husband after an argument over his infidelity and spending habits. The State of California charged her with murder. Respondent’s theory at trial was that her husband had tried to strangle her during the argument, but that she had escaped, fetched a shotgun from the bedroom, and killed him out of fear for her life. Fingernail marks were indeed found on her neck after the shooting. She testified that her husband had been abusive, and a defense expert opined that she suffered from Battered Women’s Syndrome. The State countered with forensic evidence showing that the fingernail marks were not her husband’s and may have been self-inflicted, and with the testimony of a 911 operator who overheard respondent tell her husband she had shot him because she would no longer tolerate his behavior. Under California law, “[mjurder is the unlawful killing of a human being . . . with malice aforethought.” Cal. Penal Code Ann. § 187(a) (West 1999). The element of malice is negated if one kills out of fear of imminent peril. In re Christian S., 7 Cal. 4th 768, 773, 872 P. 2d 574, 576 (1994). Where that fear is unreasonable (but nevertheless genuine), it reduces the crime from murder to voluntary manslaughter — a doctrine known as “imperfect self-defense.” Ibid. At respondent’s trial, the judge instructed the jury on these concepts as…
Excerpt of a 9,424-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.