## Facts

- Steven Scott’s niece told him that Dan Smith (Scott’s sister’s boyfriend) had molested her.
- Scott became upset, went to a convenience store to buy beer, then returned home and continued talking with his niece.
- Smith and Scott’s sister arrived to pick up the niece; the niece, her mother, and Scott went inside to talk.
- Scott told his sister about the alleged molestation; she said she did not believe her daughter.
- Scott retrieved a handgun and went outside to confront Smith, who was seated in a car.
- Scott testified he asked Smith about the molestation; he claimed Smith responded with a taunting statement implying sexual entitlement.
- Scott testified he “lost it,” “blacked out,” and shot Smith, who died from gunshot wounds.
- A jury convicted Scott of felony murder, aggravated assault, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime; he received life imprisonment plus a consecutive five-year firearm sentence.
- The trial court substantially excluded evidence of the alleged molestation and refused to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter; the motion for new trial was denied.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter as a lesser-included offense where there was at least slight evidence of serious provocation and heat of passion.
2. Whether the trial court erred by excluding evidence that the victim allegedly molested Scott’s niece when offered to show provocation and Scott’s state of mind, rather than the victim’s character.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Georgia reversed Scott’s convictions and remanded for a new trial.
- The trial court erred by refusing to charge voluntary manslaughter because there was “any evidence, however slight” from which a jury could find Scott acted under sudden, violent, and irresistible passion caused by serious provocation.
- The trial court erred by excluding molestation evidence because it was relevant to Scott’s state of mind and his voluntary manslaughter theory.
- The errors were not harmless because a properly instructed jury, hearing the provocation evidence, could have returned a voluntary manslaughter verdict rather than murder.

## Legal Principles

- Voluntary manslaughter requires proof that the defendant killed under circumstances that would otherwise be murder, but acted solely as a result of sudden, violent, and irresistible passion arising from serious provocation sufficient to excite such passion in a reasonable person. OCGA § 16-5-2(a).
- In a murder trial, if there is any evidence, however slight, supporting voluntary manslaughter, the court must instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter; assessing credibility and weight is for the jury.
- Evidence of the victim’s alleged misconduct may be admissible when offered to show the defendant’s state of mind and claimed provocation, rather than to prove the victim’s bad character.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Georgia ordered a new trial because the jury was denied a required voluntary manslaughter instruction despite slight supporting evidence, and because exclusion of evidence about the alleged molestation prevented the jury from evaluating the defendant’s claimed provocation and heat-of-passion theory.


Scott v. State, 291 Ga. 156 (2012)