Attorney General for Jersey v. Holley
3 All ER 371 (2005)
Holley (defendant) lived together with his partner, Cherylinn Mullane. They were both alcoholics and frequently had violent fights while drunk. During these arguments, Mullane often made derogatory comments to Holley. On April 13, 2000, the couple began drinking heavily at a pub. Holley went home first and began chopping wood with an axe while drinking beer. By the time Mullane returned from drinking at the pub, Holley had consumed eleven cans and three pints of beer. Mullane told Holley that she had slept with another man. Holley picked up the axe, intending to go out to chop more wood. Mullane thought he meant to hurt her and said that he did not have the guts. Holley then struck Mullane with the axe seven or eight times. At trial, Holley pleaded not guilty to murder, stating that he was provoked into killing Mullane and that he was at most guilty of manslaughter. The Royal Court convicted him of murder. He appealed to the Court of Appeal, which set aside his conviction and scheduled a retrial. During his second trial, an expert testified that Holley’s alcoholism made his binge drinking involuntary. Another expert testified that Holley’s personality traits made him susceptible to provocation. The judge did not allow the jury to consider the expert evidence when considering whether a reasonable person would have acted as the defendant did. The jury convicted Holley of murder. Holley appealed again to the Court of Appeal, which set aside the murder conviction. Rather than order a new trial, the Court of Appeal entered a verdict of manslaughter. This appeal challenges the trial judge’s disallowance of evidence relating to Holley’s personal characteristics, including his history of alcoholism.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Nichols, L.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 175,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.