United States v. Paul

Darlene Paul and Michael Mitchell Paul (Paul) (defendant), a married couple, lived on the Gila River Indian Reservation. Darlene came home drunk one night and would not tell Paul where their two-and-a-half-year-old son, Joshua, was. An argument ensued, ending with Paul strangling Darlene and banging her head against the floor. Paul cleaned himself up, went to his mother’s house, told her he thought he killed Darlene, and asked her to call the police. An officer drove Paul to his house, where the officer found Darlene dead on the floor. Indicted for second-degree murder, Paul argued that he did not intend to kill Darlene—that she bled to death because of an accidental fall during the fight. The court used the Ninth Circuit’s model jury instructions for the difference between the lesser-included offenses of voluntary and involuntary manslaughter, which contained no reference to mental states. During deliberations, the jury asked for clarification on the meaning of “kill,” which the court said could include a death resulting from the defendant’s actions. The jury reached an impasse, and the court instructed it to keep deliberating. The jury sought clarification on the first elements of voluntary and involuntary manslaughter, i.e., “the defendant killed Darlene” versus “Darlene was killed as a result of an act” by Paul. The court responded that the two elements were essentially the same. Paul’s counsel objected, arguing that one required more volition and the other was unintentional. The jury quickly found Paul guilty of voluntary manslaughter. Sentenced to 41 months in prison, Paul appealed.