Commonwealth v Schnopps Case - Essay Example

Commonwealth v. Schnopps Commonwealth v. Schnopps is a case that involved the prosecution of a defendant - Mr George Schnopp - for killing his wife. Facts of the Case: George Schnopps shot his wife on October 19 1979 after six months of strained relations. The defendant and his wife had been married for fourteen years. On a night out with his wife to a club, Mrs. Schnopps had spent the entire evening dancing with a co-worker of the defendant. This sparked an argument between the defendant and his wife when they returned home from the club.

The defendant accused his wife of having an affair with another man but Mrs Schnopps denied the accusation. The defendant made a series of threats of physical harm against his wife within the period of their strained relationship but never carried out any of those threats. The relationship deteriorated further, leading to Mrs. Schnopps leaving the matrimonial home with their children to stay with her mother. Mrs Schnopps decided to sue for divorce but on the plea and invitation of the defendant, she went back to the matrimonial home so they could talk about their differences.

In the ensuing discussion, Schnopps cried and begged his wife not to leave him and also not to take the children away from him. She was adamant concerning her stance on divorce and reportedly said: "No, I am going to court, you are going to give me all the furniture, you are going to have to get the Hell out of here, you won't have nothing." (Commonwealth v. Schnopps, (1981) p.180) Pointing in the direction of her genitals Mrs Schnopps also told the defendant: "You will never touch this again, because I have got something bigger and better for it.

" (Commonwealth v. Schnopps, (1981) p.180) On hearing these words, the defendant claims he went berserk and his mind went blank. He went and took a gun he had loaded the previous day and shot his wife and himself. The defendant claims he passed out after shooting himself and called for help when he regained consciousness. Ruling of the Appeal Court: Schnopps was convicted by a jury on murder in the first degree and was thus sentenced to the mandatory term of life imprisonment. On appeal against his conviction, Schnopps argued that the trial judge failed to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter.

The appeal court sided with Schnopps argument and opined that: "Instructions on voluntary manslaughter must be given if there is evidence of provocation deemed adequate in law to cause the accused to lose his self-control in the heat of passion, and if the killing followed the provocation before sufficient time had elapsed for the accused's temper to cool". (Commonwealth v. Schnopps, p.180) Basing voluntary manslaughter on the theory of provocation implies that an act of killing must have been committed in "a sudden transport of passion or heat of blood, upon a reasonable provocation and without malice, or upon sudden combat".

(Commonwealth v. Garabedian, (1987) p. 313) The success of Schnopps appeal for a conviction of voluntary manslaughter due to provocation establishes the principle that where there is reasonable evidence to show that a defendant had been reasonably provoked and had killed as a result of that provocation, a direction of voluntary manslaughter should be given to the jury. (Commonwealth v. Brooks, (1996)) However, as established in Commonwealth v. Schopps, if enough time elapsed after the provocation to enable a cooling of temper, the act of killing could not be defended under the theory of voluntary manslaughter based on provocation.

Consequently, "Provocation and "cooling off" time must meet both a subjective and an objective standard. (Commonwealth v. Groome, p. 220 (2001)) Cases Cited Commonwealth v. Brooks, 422 Mass. 574, (1996) Commonwealth v. Garabedian, 399 Mass. 304, (1987) Commonwealth v. Groome, 435 Mass. 201, (2001) Commonwealth v. Schnopps, 383 Mass 178, (1981)