Posted: May 19th, 2017

When Seth got home from work, he found his wife highly agitated. She told him that the next-door neighbor had molested their 5-year-old daughter. The accusation was a false one but, nonetheless, Seth flew into a rage and stormed to the house next door. Finding the neighbor in his garage working on a lawnmower, Seth grabbed a large mallet and pounded him on the head

When Seth got home from work, he found his wife highly agitated. She told him that the next-door neighbor had molested their 5-year-old daughter. The accusation was a false one but, nonetheless, Seth flew into a rage and stormed to the house next door. Finding the neighbor in his garage working on a lawnmower, Seth grabbed a large mallet and pounded him on the head. The blows turned out to be fatal. Under the MPC, it would be proper for the jury to consider “extreme emotional disturbance”: a. If Seth’s rage resulted from an honest belief that the neighbor had molested his daughter. b. If Seth’s rage resulted from an honest and reasonable belief that neighbor had molested his daughter. c. Only if the neighbor had actually molested his daughter. d. None of the above. The “extreme emotional disturbance” defense is just another name for common-law provocation, and it is not substantially different from the common-law doctrine.