D was a WWII vet turned alcoholic. After drinking heavily one day, D fatally stabbed his son.
People heard son scream for his dad to stop, and then as the son died, he said that his dad killed him.
D only remembered sitting down to drink; his next memory is being in prison.
D was charged with second degree murder. D introduced evidence at trial about "conditioned response." D contended that he was in an automatic (unconscious) state at the time. He involuntarily reacts violently when people come up behind him unexpectedly.
The trial court ruled that conditioned response was not a defense in WA, so the jury should disregard all testimony about it.
Jury convicted D of manslaughter.
Procedural History:
Trial court found D guilty of manslaughter.
WA COA affirmed, D guilty of manslaughter.
Issues:
Within the definition of homicide, what kind of act is required for a D to be found guilty?
Holding/Rule:
Within the definition of homicide, an act must be a willed movement, not committed while unconscious. There must be an exercise of will.
Reasoning:
When the state of unconsciousness is voluntarily induced using drugs or alcohol, then the defense falls short of being a complete defense.
D's theory should have been given to the jury if there was sufficient evidence to support it; however, there is not sufficient evidence in this case.
There is no evidence from which the jury could infer what actually happened in the room.
