## Facts

- M. F. Fraley was jailed in Osage County, Oklahoma, charged with murdering Dan Parker, and was committed without bail after a preliminary hearing.
- At the time of the shooting, Parker was standing outside a drug store in Pawhuska talking with others.
- Fraley approached Parker, greeted him, and immediately fired two shots without any contemporaneous provocation shown in the record.
- After Parker fell, Fraley shot him four additional times.
- Fraley walked away, returned, placed the pistol near Parker’s head, attempted to fire again, and stated that he had said he would kill Parker and blamed Parker for killing Fraley’s son.
- Fraley sought release on bail by original habeas corpus, arguing the killing occurred in the heat of passion triggered by seeing Parker, who had killed Fraley’s son roughly nine or ten months earlier and had been acquitted.
- Fraley also claimed confinement threatened his health and warranted bail even if the charge remained capital.

## Issues

1. Whether a homicide may be treated as heat-of-passion manslaughter when the asserted provocation occurred nine or ten months earlier, and whether “cooling time” can be decided as a matter of law.
2. Whether the evidence showed murder (malice aforethought) rather than manslaughter for purposes of bail.
3. In a capital case bail proceeding by habeas corpus, which party bears the burden to show whether “proof is evident or the presumption great.”
4. Whether a court may admit a capital defendant to bail based on health-related or humanitarian grounds, and what showing is required.

## Decision

- The court denied habeas corpus relief and refused bail.
- The court held that nine or ten months is, as a matter of law, more than sufficient cooling time; the killing could not be reduced to manslaughter on a heat-of-passion theory.
- On the uncontradicted record, the proof of guilt of murder was evident and the presumption great, so bail was constitutionally unavailable.
- The health-related showing was insufficient to justify any discretionary admission to bail.

## Legal Principles

- Heat-of-passion mitigation requires legally adequate provocation and a temporal connection; when the lapse of time is so long that passion must be presumed cooled, the court may rule as a matter of law that the offense is not manslaughter.
- A defendant’s claim of continued subjective rage does not prevent a legal finding of adequate cooling time when objective limits are exceeded.
- In capital cases, bail may be denied when the proof is evident or the presumption great; in habeas proceedings seeking bail, the accused bears the burden to show the contrary.
- A committing magistrate’s order holding the accused without bail supports a presumption against bail that the accused must rebut.
- Health or confinement-based requests for bail in a capital case require a strong evidentiary showing; generalized claims of impaired health or discomfort from jail are insufficient.

## Conclusion

The court treated the killing as murder for bail purposes because a nine-to-ten-month interval between the asserted provocation and the homicide is legally sufficient cooling time, and it denied bail because the evidence made guilt evident and the presumption great, with no adequate health-based justification for discretionary release.


Ex parte Fraley, 109 P. 295 (Okla. Crim. App. 1910)