## Facts

- Redd Rock Serawop, a member of the Ute Indian Tribe, cared for his three-month-old daughter and other children while the child’s mother served a short jail sentence.
- The infant reportedly cried persistently, and Serawop later called for medical help when the child developed breathing problems.
- The child died shortly thereafter.
- An autopsy found multiple forceful blows to the head and additional contusions; the injuries caused unconsciousness and led to death.
- Serawop admitted inflicting the injuries but claimed they were accidental or occurred in the heat of passion due to stress.

## Issues

1. What mens rea must the government prove for federal voluntary manslaughter under 18 U.S.C. § 1112(a)?
2. Whether a voluntary-manslaughter instruction that requires only an “unlawful killing in the heat of passion,” without requiring an intentional or depraved-heart reckless mental state, is reversible error.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit reversed the voluntary manslaughter conviction and remanded.
- The court held that voluntary manslaughter under 18 U.S.C. § 1112(a) requires heat of passion plus a culpable mental state: general intent to kill, intent to do serious bodily injury, or depraved-heart recklessness.
- The court held the district court’s instruction was erroneous because it allowed conviction based on heat of passion alone, without requiring proof of the required mental state.
- The error was prejudicial because it lowered the government’s burden and risked collapsing the distinction between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter.

## Legal Principles

- Federal voluntary manslaughter under 18 U.S.C. § 1112(a) requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of an unlawful killing committed in the heat of passion and accompanied by one of the following mental states:
  - general intent to kill (awareness that death is practically certain to result),
  - intent to inflict serious bodily injury, or
  - depraved-heart (extreme-indifference) recklessness.
- “Heat of passion” negates malice but does not eliminate the requirement that the killing be intentional or extremely reckless.
- Jury instructions on voluntary manslaughter must expressly communicate the mental-state element; an instruction permitting conviction based solely on an unlawful heat-of-passion killing is insufficient.
- Failure to instruct on an essential mens rea element of voluntary manslaughter constitutes reversible instructional error when it may have affected the verdict.

## Conclusion

The court required that federal voluntary manslaughter be treated as a heat-of-passion mitigation of an otherwise intentional or depraved-heart reckless homicide, and it reversed because the jury was not instructed to find that level of culpability.


United States v. Serawop, 410 F.3d 656 (10th Cir. 2005)