939.44 Adequate provocation.

319 words·~1 min read·/wi/chapter-939/939-44-3

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

(1)In this section:

(a)“Adequate” means sufficient to cause complete lack of self-control in an ordinarily constituted person.

(b)“Provocation” means something which the defendant reasonably believes the intended victim has done which causes the defendant to lack self-control completely at the time of causing death.

(2)Adequate provocation is an affirmative defense only to first-degree intentional homicide and mitigates that offense to 2nd-degree intentional homicide.

939.44 Note Judicial Council Note, 1988: Sub.

(1)codifies Wisconsin decisions defining “heat of passion” under prior s. 940.05. Ryan v. State, 115 Wis. 488 (1902); Johnson v. State, 129 Wis. 146 (1906); Carlone v. State, 150 Wis. 38 (1912); Zenou v. State, 4 Wis. 2d 655 (1958); State v. Bond, 41 Wis. 2d 219 (1969); State v. Williford, 103 Wis. 2d 98 (1981).

939.44 Note Traditionally, provocation had 2 essential requirements. State v. Williford, supra., at 113. The first reflected in sub.

(1)(b), is subjective. The defendant must have acted in response to provocation. This necessitates an assessment of the particular defendant’s state of mind at the time of the killing. The 2nd requirement, reflected in sub.

(1)(a), is objective. Only provocation sufficient to cause a reasonable person to lose self-control completely is legally adequate to mitigate the severity of the offense.

939.44 Note Sub.

(2)clarifies that adequate provocation is an affirmative defense to first-degree intentional homicide. Although adequate provocation does not negate the intent to kill such that the burden of persuasion rests on the state by constitutional principles (Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684 , (1975), Wisconsin has chosen to place the burden of disproving this defensive matter on the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Lee, 108 Wis. 2d 1 (1982). Since adequate provocation is not an affirmative defense to 2nd-degree intentional homicide, its effect is to mitigate the severity of an intentional homicide from first to 2nd degree. [Bill 191-S]