## Facts

- James Clark Thornton, III and his wife had been married nearly four years, had a young child, and had been separated for about six weeks; Thornton was attempting reconciliation.
- On May 3, 1983, Thornton went to the marital home and saw an unfamiliar car and his wife with a man later identified as Mark McConkey.
- Thornton deflated one tire of the car, returned to his apartment, and retrieved a camera and a pistol, stating he intended to take photographs for counseling and possible divorce-related use.
- Thornton returned, listened outside a bedroom window, and heard sounds consistent with sexual intercourse.
- Thornton forcibly entered the home and discovered his wife and McConkey engaged in sexual relations in a bedroom.
- Thornton fired one shot, striking McConkey in the left hip; McConkey died sixteen days later from infection resulting from the wound.
- Thornton had no prior acquaintance with McConkey and no evidence showed a prior grudge or animus.
- At trial, Thornton asserted self-defense and temporary insanity; the jury rejected both and convicted him of first-degree murder.

## Issues

1. Whether the undisputed circumstances—discovering one’s spouse engaged in sexual intercourse with a paramour in the marital home—constituted adequate provocation that, as a matter of law, reduced the homicide from murder to voluntary manslaughter absent proof of actual malice.
2. Whether Thornton’s pre-shooting conduct (including leaving to obtain a pistol and returning) supported a finding of premeditation or malice sufficient to sustain a first-degree murder conviction.
3. Whether an appellate court may modify the degree of homicide on direct review when the material facts are undisputed and the legal classification of the offense is determinable as a matter of law.

## Decision

- The Tennessee Supreme Court modified the judgment, reducing the conviction from first-degree murder to voluntary manslaughter.
- The court held the undisputed facts did not support a conviction greater than voluntary manslaughter.
- The court concluded that discovering a spouse in the act of adultery in the marital home is sufficient legal provocation to negate the malice required for murder, absent evidence of actual malice (e.g., prior grudge or revenge).
- The case was remanded to the trial court for resentencing on voluntary manslaughter.
- The court did not disturb the jury’s rejection of self-defense and temporary insanity; mitigation rested on provocation, not those defenses.

## Legal Principles

- Adequate provocation can reduce an intentional killing from murder to voluntary manslaughter by negating malice when the defendant acts in sudden heat of passion.
- Discovery of a spouse engaged in sexual intercourse with a third person, particularly in the marital home, constitutes adequate provocation as a matter of law absent proof of independent, actual malice.
- The absence of prior animus toward the victim supports treating the killing as heat-of-passion rather than as a malicious or revenge-motivated homicide.
- Appellate courts may modify a conviction to a lesser degree of homicide when the material facts are undisputed and the higher degree is legally unsupported under the provocation doctrine.

## Conclusion

The Tennessee Supreme Court held that, on undisputed facts, Thornton’s killing of his wife’s lover immediately after discovering adultery in the marital home was legally provoked and could not support a murder conviction; it reduced the judgment to voluntary manslaughter and remanded for resentencing.


State v. Thornton, 730 S.W.2d 309 (Tenn. 1987)