LawnixCase BriefsComplete Cases IndexCivil ProcedureConstitutional LawContractsCriminal LawOutlinesPropertyTorts

 

Freddo v. State – Case Brief

Freddo v. State, 127 Tenn. 376, 155 S.W. 170 (1913).

Facts: Freddo (D) was a 19 year old railroad company employee. Higginbotham, an employee of the same company, was 25 years of age and was taller and outweighed Freddo by 30 pounds. Higginbotham called Freddo a son of a bitch on numerous occasions and refused Freddo’s requests to stop. Freddo was noticeably upset by the name calling and coworkers asked Higginbotham to stop on Freddo’s behalf.

While working together one day, Higginbotham began name calling again and the defendant hit him on the head with a steel bar. He was indicted for first degree murder and was convicted of second degree murder. On appeal, defendant contended that he should only have been found guilty of voluntary manslaughter because he had been provoked.

Issue: Under what circumstances will provocation allow for a conviction of the lesser offense of voluntary manslaughter?

Holding and Rule: For voluntary manslaughter the passion from the provocation must be such that the law deems it reasonable and adequate in the mind of an average person to cause violence, leading the heat of passion to take control rather than judgment.

The court stated that no mere epithet or language is sufficient provocation for taking life no matter how offensive. At common law an assault accompanied with offensive language may become provocation. The court held that in this case however Freddo hit the victim from behind when the victim was not in a position to assault him.

Disposition: Judgment affirmed with a recommendation that the governor commute to a lesser sentence.

Notes: There must be adequate provocation such that a reasonable person would loose self control and passions would surpass judgment. A determination of adequate provocation is assessed under an objective standard.

See Godfrey v. Georgia for a criminal law case brief in which the United States Supreme Court held that an aggravating circumstance in a death penalty case was arbitrary and capricious and therefore unconstitutional.


Related posts: