## Facts

- Paul Guebara and Genny Guebara lived as common-law spouses and had a volatile relationship marked by frequent arguments and occasional violence.
- In February 1983, Genny filed for divorce and initiated misdemeanor battery and theft charges against Paul.
- On February 15, 1983, after being served with a misdemeanor warrant, Paul told a deputy sheriff he was angry about the divorce and charges and stated he was going to kill Genny and then turn himself in.
- On February 16, 1983, Paul and Genny argued about the pending criminal charges and divorce; after Genny indicated she could not drop the charges, Paul shot and killed her.
- At trial, Paul admitted the killing and testified he acted on a sudden impulse without reflection.
- The trial court instructed the jury on first- and second-degree murder but refused a defense request to instruct on voluntary manslaughter based on heat of passion/sudden quarrel.
- The jury convicted Paul of first-degree murder; he appealed solely on the refusal to give a voluntary manslaughter instruction.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence required an instruction on voluntary manslaughter as a lesser included offense of murder based on heat of passion arising from a sudden quarrel.
2. Whether, applying an objective standard, the asserted provocation (a domestic argument over divorce and criminal charges) was legally sufficient to reduce an intentional killing from murder to voluntary manslaughter.
3. Whether prior threats and expressed intent to kill negated the “suddenness” and contemporaneous heat of passion necessary for a voluntary manslaughter instruction.

## Decision

- The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the first-degree murder conviction.
- The court held the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter.
- The court concluded the evidence did not provide a reasonable basis for a jury to find legally sufficient provocation causing heat of passion at the time of the killing.
- The court relied in part on the defendant’s prior threats and stated intent to kill as evidence inconsistent with a sudden, provoked loss of reason.

## Legal Principles

- A defendant is entitled to a voluntary manslaughter instruction based on heat of passion only if the emotional state existed at the time of the act and arose from legally sufficient provocation.
- The sufficiency of provocation is judged by an objective standard: the provocation must be enough to cause an ordinary person to lose self-control and reason.
- The objective standard excludes consideration of the defendant’s personal peculiarities or unusual susceptibility to anger.
- Ordinary domestic disputes and verbal statements, without more, generally do not constitute sufficient provocation to warrant a voluntary manslaughter instruction.
- A lesser included offense instruction is required only when evidence would reasonably justify a conviction of the lesser offense; evidence of prior threats and intent may support a finding of premeditation and defeat a heat-of-passion theory.

## Conclusion

The court held that, under an objective provocation standard, the domestic argument and inability to drop charges did not constitute legally sufficient provocation, and the defendant’s prior threats supported premeditation; therefore, the trial court properly declined to instruct on voluntary manslaughter and the first-degree murder conviction was affirmed.


State v. Guebara, 236 Kan. 791, 696 P.2d 381 (Kan. 1985)