## Facts

- John Dennis and his wife, Robin, separated; Robin began living with and having an affair with Bantz.
- Dennis was upset by the relationship and believed Bantz was involved with drugs; Dennis made threats toward Bantz.
- Robin suggested the affair was over and stayed at Dennis’s home briefly, but the relationship remained unstable.
- Dennis learned that their child had been at Bantz’s residence and that Bantz smoked cocaine in front of the child.
- Dennis armed himself with a handgun and drove to Bantz’s house.
- Dennis saw Robin and Bantz inside, hugging and partially undressed, and believed they were about to have sex.
- Dennis kicked in the door and shot Bantz multiple times (nine shots), killing him.

## Issues

1. Whether “legally adequate provocation” for hot-blooded voluntary manslaughter based on marital infidelity extends beyond sudden discovery of sexual intercourse to broader “sexual intimacy” short of intercourse.
2. Whether the trial court erred by instructing the jury that, on this theory, adequate provocation required sudden discovery of the spouse in the act of sexual intercourse (or strong reason to believe it very recently occurred).
3. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support premeditation and deliberation for first-degree murder despite Dennis’s heat-of-passion claim.

## Decision

- The Maryland Court of Special Appeals affirmed the first-degree premeditated murder conviction.
- The court declined to expand the infidelity-based adequate provocation category beyond sudden discovery of sexual intercourse (or an immediately completed act).
- The court held the challenged jury instruction accurately reflected Maryland law and was not reversible error.
- The court held the evidence supported a finding of premeditation and deliberation, including Dennis’s arming himself, traveling to the victim’s home, forced entry, and firing nine shots.

## Legal Principles

- Voluntary manslaughter based on hot-blooded response requires: legally adequate provocation; actual heat of passion; no reasonable opportunity to cool; and a causal connection between provocation, passion, and the killing.
- In Maryland, infidelity-based legally adequate provocation is narrowly limited to sudden discovery of one’s spouse in the act of sexual intercourse (or circumstances showing it just occurred); it does not include undefined “sexual intimacy” or “significant sexual contact” short of intercourse.
- Adequate provocation is governed by objective, categorical limits; subjective emotional impact alone does not broaden the recognized categories.
- Premeditation and deliberation may be inferred from circumstantial evidence, can be formed in a short time, and are supported by conduct showing a conscious decision to kill (e.g., arming oneself, traveling to the victim, forced entry, multiple shots).

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Dennis’s first-degree murder conviction, holding that Maryland’s infidelity-based adequate provocation doctrine remains confined to sudden discovery of sexual intercourse (or its immediate aftermath), and that the evidence permitted the jury to find premeditation despite Dennis’s heat-of-passion theory.


Dennis v. State, 105 Md. App. 687 (Ct. Spec. App. 1995)