Also known as: extreme emotional disturbance test · EED test · MPC extreme emotional disturbance · heat of passion · voluntary manslaughter defense
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A statutory standard under the Model Penal Code that reduces murder to manslaughter when the defendant killed under the influence of an extreme mental or emotional disturbance for which there is a reasonable explanation or excuse. The test measures the disturbance from the viewpoint of a person in the defendant's situation under the circumstances as the defendant believed them to be. It replaces the common-law requirements of adequate provocation and cooling-off period with a broader inquiry into the defendant's subjective emotional state.
Edgar Evers learned that coworker Elijah Edwards had accused him of falsifying reports. After a heated exchange in the office, Edgar retrieved a handgun from his desk and shot Elijah in the chest. At trial Edgar claims the MPC extreme emotional disturbance test applies because the accusation caused an intense reaction that overpowered his self-control.
Esme Ellington discovered that Elena Estrada had reported her for safety violations that cost Esme a year-end bonus. During a late-night argument on an unguarded platform, Elena repeated the criticism. Esme shoved Elena off the edge. Esme asserts the MPC test mitigates the charge because the repeated criticism produced an extreme emotional disturbance.
Eugene Ellsworth met with his managing partner to discuss termination. The partner grabbed Eugene by the collar and slapped him. Eugene immediately struck the partner with a concealed poker. Eugene contends the MPC extreme emotional disturbance test reduces the offense because the battery produced a reasonable emotional disturbance viewed from his situation.
On December 27, 1970, Gordon Patterson shot and killed John Northrup in Glens Falls, New York. After a brief and unstable marriage, Patterson had become estranged from his wife Roberta. Roberta had resumed an association with Northrup, a neighbor to whom she had been engaged before her marriage to Patterson. Patterson borrowed a rifle from an acquaintance and went to the residence of his father-in-law. There he observed his wife through a window in a state of semiundress in Northrup's presence. He entered the house and killed Northrup by shooting him twice in the head. Patterson was charged with second-degree murder. At his jury trial in Warren County Court, Patterson raised the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance and presented psychiatric evidence tending to show that he had been extremely emotionally disturbed when he killed Northrup. The jury was instructed that the prosecution had the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the crime of murder. The defendant had the burden of proving the affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence. The jury convicted Patterson of second-degree murder. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. While appeal to the New York Court of Appeals was pending, this Court decided Mullaney v. Wilbur. The New York Court of Appeals nevertheless affirmed, distinguishing the Maine statute at issue in Mullaney and holding that New York's allocation of the burden of proof on the affirmative defense was consistent with due process. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari limited to the question whether the burden of proof placed on the defendant by New York law is consistent with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
View caseEric Espinoza worked a sixteen-hour shift and declined an offer for a ride home. While driving he was overwhelmed by rage at a pedestrian who had earlier insulted him and struck the pedestrian. Eric argues the MPC test applies because the insult created an emotional disturbance that explains his conduct under the circumstances as he perceived them.
Empire Logistics supervisor Elena Estrada retrieved a scalpel after hearing a nurse approach. The nurse shoved her and accused her of falsifying records. Elena stabbed the nurse in the chest. Elena claims the MPC extreme emotional disturbance test mitigates liability because the battery and accusations produced a reasonable emotional reaction.
Edgewater Capital associate Elijah Edwards learned during a meeting that partner Eric Espinoza had blocked his promotion. Elijah immediately stabbed Eric with a concealed letter opener. Elijah maintains the MPC test reduces the charge because the revelation produced an extreme emotional disturbance for which there was a reasonable explanation.
The MPC test replaces the common-law requirements of adequate provocation and a reasonable cooling-off period with a single inquiry into whether the defendant acted under an extreme mental or emotional disturbance for which there is a reasonable explanation or excuse. The test evaluates the disturbance from the viewpoint of a person in the defendant's situation under the circumstances as the defendant believed them to be.
Supporting sources
…defendant of proving, in rebutting the statutory presumption, that he acted with a lesser degree of culpability, such as in the heat of passion, to win a reduction in the offense from murder to manslaughter (and thus a reduction of the maximum punishment of 20 years). The State had posited in Mullaney that requiring a defendant…
…Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the absence of the heat of passion on sudden provocation when the issue is properly presented in a homicide case. In that case, a Maine jury had been instructed that if the State established that the homicide was both…
…if they found beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant did the killing without malice or deliberation, but upon a sudden heat of passion caused by a provocation apparently sufficient to make the
…such as those committed with coolness of mind, and second degree used for murders committed on impulse, in frenzy or the heat of passion. We conclude that the Government's case in chief, though ample to permit a finding of intentional murder, did not present evidence of premeditation and deliberation sufficient to warrant…
The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt every element of murder. The defendant may raise extreme emotional disturbance as an affirmative defense that the defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence.
Supporting sources
Mere words can support the test if they produce an extreme mental or emotional disturbance for which there is a reasonable explanation or excuse when viewed from the defendant's situation. The MPC does not categorically exclude words the way common law often excludes them under the mere-words rule.
A serious battery inflicted on the defendant can support the test because it may produce an extreme mental or emotional disturbance for which there is a reasonable explanation when viewed from the defendant's situation under the circumstances as believed by the defendant.
Supporting sources
The MPC test does not require that the disturbance arise suddenly. It focuses on whether the defendant acted under the influence of an extreme mental or emotional disturbance for which there is a reasonable explanation or excuse, without the common-law cooling-off limitation.