## Facts

- Damien McGuy and Sherwin “Nesto” Grant had multiple verbal and physical confrontations over a two-day period, including an earlier incident in which Grant attacked McGuy.
- After the earlier confrontation, McGuy obtained a handgun.
- In the early morning of December 11, 1998, McGuy sat in the front passenger seat of a car when Grant leaned into the open passenger-side window.
- Grant and McGuy argued for more than five minutes while Grant leaned into the car.
- McGuy testified that Grant repeatedly touched McGuy’s face with one hand and held a gun with the other hand during the argument.
- McGuy further testified that when Grant appeared to be drawing a gun from his coat pocket, McGuy fired multiple shots, killing Grant.
- Other witnesses did not report seeing Grant with a gun, and police did not recover a gun at the scene.
- McGuy was tried and convicted of second-degree murder and related firearms offenses, including carrying a pistol without a license, committing a crime of violence while armed, and discharging a firearm from a vehicle.
- McGuy requested a jury instruction on voluntary manslaughter as a lesser-included offense of murder; the trial justice refused.
- McGuy appealed, challenging the refusal to give the voluntary-manslaughter instruction and arguing that separate convictions for murder and committing a crime of violence while armed amounted to multiple punishments for the same offense.

## Issues

1. Did the trial justice err by refusing to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter as a lesser-included offense of murder based on heat of passion and legally adequate provocation?
2. Did convicting and sentencing McGuy for both second-degree murder and committing a crime of violence while armed violate double-jeopardy protections against multiple punishments for the same offense?

## Decision

- The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction.
- The court held that the trial justice properly refused the voluntary-manslaughter instruction because the evidence did not permit a rational jury to find that McGuy acted in the heat of sudden passion, without malice, in response to adequate provocation.
- The court held there was no double-jeopardy violation because murder and committing a crime of violence while armed each requires proof of a fact the other does not.

## Legal Principles

- A defendant is entitled to a lesser-included-offense instruction only when there is evidence from which a rational jury could acquit on the greater offense and convict on the lesser.
- Voluntary manslaughter is an intentional killing committed in the heat of sudden passion, without malice aforethought, and caused by legally adequate provocation.
- Mere words, insults, or a protracted argument generally do not constitute legally adequate provocation for voluntary manslaughter; the record must support a finding that provocation and passion negated malice.
- Under the same-elements test for double jeopardy, cumulative punishments are permitted when each offense contains an element not contained in the other.
- Second-degree murder requires proof of an unlawful killing with malice, while the offense of committing a crime of violence while armed requires proof that the defendant was armed during the commission of a qualifying crime of violence.

## Conclusion

State v. McGuy affirmed McGuy’s second-degree murder and related weapons convictions. The Rhode Island Supreme Court held that the trial justice correctly refused a voluntary-manslaughter instruction because the evidence, even when viewed favorably to McGuy’s account, could not support a finding of heat of passion triggered by legally adequate provocation sufficient to negate malice. The court also rejected McGuy’s double-jeopardy claim, concluding that murder and committing a crime of violence while armed are separate offenses under the same-elements test because each includes a required element the other lacks.


State v. McGuy, 841 A.2d 1109 (2003)