A divorced father of two with an erratic temper and a drinking problem would sometimes beat his children. Three days after a particularly savage beating of his 17-year-old son, the father came home late from work in a drunken state. The father asked where his dinner was, and the son replied that he had given the food to the dog. The father became angered, telling the son, âIâll teach you to have some respect.â Feeling a little unsteady, he added, âafter a little nap.â The father then collapsed on the couch. The son knew that there would be trouble when his father came to, and so he took his younger brother to a next-door neighborâs house. He then returned home and looked for his fatherâs handgun, but he could not find it.
Rather than continue looking for the gun, the son retrieved a large knife from the kitchen drawer, and waited near the couch for his father to awaken. When the father awoke a short time later, he saw his son holding the knife. Worried, he asked the son what he was doing with the knife. The son replied, âYou wonât hurt us anymore,â and jabbed the knife into his fatherâs chest, killing the father instantly.
The son is brought to trial as an adult. The jurisdiction follows the common law definitions of crimes.
The court is most likely to find that:
a) The son is guilty of murder, because he intended to kill is father.
b) The son is guilty of voluntary manslaughter, because his father provoked him.
c) The son is guilty of voluntary manslaughter, because the beatings by his father constituted a continuing provocation.
d) The son was justified in killing his father, because he acted in self-defense.