MBE Trap: Voluntary Manslaughter

Probably the easiest way to understand voluntary manslaughter (under the common law) is to think of it in the following terms: voluntary manslaughter = murder + adequate provocation. In other words, first the elements of murder must be satisfied, and then if there's adequate provocation in addition to those elements, there's a case for voluntary manslaughter. 

That brings me to the trap: the test writers will instead see if you'll make the following mistake: voluntary manslaughter = murder + provocation. 

You'll notice that the word "adequate" is missing from the trap definition. They'll set up fact patterns where a person kills another because the person is "enraged" or "extremely heated" or "very angry." But those are all subjective feelings, and the word "adequate" requires that you first determine that the provocation would also have had the same effect on a reasonable person. 

The fact that someone is enraged isn't irrelevant, but it's also not dispositive. If the person is a "hot head" such that a reasonable person would not have felt that same degree of rage, then don't be so quick to reduce the crime to voluntary manslaughter. 

It's entirely possible for someone to murder another person even if the murderer is extremely angry when committing that act.