## Facts

- Vidado B. Dumlao shot and killed his mother-in-law, Pacita M. Reyes, and shot and injured his brother-in-law, Pedrito Reyes.
- A jury convicted Dumlao of murder and first-degree reckless endangering; only the murder conviction was appealed.
- The defense presented expert testimony that Dumlao had a paranoid personality disorder marked by unwarranted suspiciousness, hypersensitivity, and pathological jealousy concerning his wife.
- Evidence described a history of extreme jealousy and irrational accusations toward Dumlao’s wife, including suspicions involving her family members.
- Dumlao testified about his perceptions on the night of the killing, which the defense argued reflected an extreme mental or emotional disturbance.
- The trial court instructed on murder and on reckless manslaughter, but refused Dumlao’s requested instruction on manslaughter based on “extreme mental or emotional disturbance” under HRS § 707-702(2).

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on manslaughter under HRS § 707-702(2) when evidence supported that Dumlao acted under extreme mental or emotional disturbance.
2. Whether “reasonable explanation or excuse” in HRS § 707-702(2) is assessed by a purely objective reasonable-person standard or from the viewpoint of a person in the defendant’s situation under circumstances as the defendant believed them to be.

## Decision

- The Intermediate Court of Appeals reversed the murder conviction and remanded for a new trial.
- The court interpreted HRS § 707-702(2) to require a mixed subjective/objective evaluation: reasonableness is judged from the viewpoint of a person in the defendant’s situation, under the circumstances as the defendant believed them to be.
- The court held that the record contained sufficient evidence to permit a rational jury to find extreme mental or emotional disturbance with a reasonable explanation or excuse under the statute.
- Because the refusal to give the requested instruction removed a legally supported mitigation theory from the jury, the omission was reversible error.

## Legal Principles

- Under HRS § 707-702(2), modeled on MPC § 210.3(1)(b), extreme mental or emotional disturbance manslaughter is broader than traditional provocation/heat-of-passion mitigation.
- “Reasonable explanation or excuse” is assessed from the viewpoint of a person in the defendant’s situation, considering circumstances as the defendant believed them to be, rather than by an abstract reasonable-person test.
- The defendant’s “situation” may include relevant mental and emotional characteristics (including certain mental abnormalities) that bear on the claimed disturbance.
- Extreme mental or emotional disturbance is a partial mitigation doctrine distinct from insanity; it does not negate culpability but may reduce murder to manslaughter.
- A defendant is entitled to an instruction on a defense or mitigation theory when there is evidentiary support on which a reasonable jury could find in the defendant’s favor.

## Conclusion

The court ordered a new trial because evidence supported an extreme mental or emotional disturbance manslaughter theory, and the statutory “reasonableness” inquiry must be evaluated from the defendant’s situation as he believed the circumstances to be, making the omitted instruction reversible error.


State v. Dumlao, 6 Haw. App. 173, 715 P.2d 822 (Haw. Ct. App. 1986)