Commonwealth v. Miller
COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Henry B. MILLER, Appellant
Opinion
OPINION PER CURIAM.
Appellant, who had been convicted upon a guilty plea, seeks a new trial to reduce murder in the first degree to voluntary manslaughter. He asks that the Court change the law so as to substitute a subjective test rather than an objective test in determining whether there was “serious provocation”.
After the court below gave consideration to psychiatric evidence it concluded that the objective standard had to be used, * referring to the statutory definition of “serious provocation” as “Conduct sufficient to excite an intense passion in a reasonable person,” Act of December 6, 1972, P.L. 1482, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2301, and citing Commonwealth v. McCusker, 448 Pa. 382 , 292 A.2d 286 (1972), and Commonwealth v. Outlen, 447 Pa. 195 , 290 A.2d 253 (1972).
The statute is clear and unambiguous. No constitutional issue has been raised. The statute must control.
Judgment affirmed.
* The court below also expressed the view that, even if the subjective test were used, the evidence was insufficient to show the requisite degree of passion.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 13 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.