The fact that the accused intentionally caused the death of another person under the influence of extreme emotional distress is a mitigating circumstance, reducing the crime of murder in the first degree as defined by § 636 of this title to the crime of manslaughter as defined by § 632 of this title. The fact that the accused acted under the influence of extreme emotional distress must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence. The accused must further prove by a preponderance of the evidence that there is a reasonable explanation or excuse for the existence of the extreme emotional distress. The reasonableness of the explanation or excuse shall be determined from the viewpoint of a reasonable person in the accused’s situation under the circumstances as the accused believed them to be. Extreme emotional distress is not reasonably explained or excused when it is caused or occasioned by the accused’s own mental disturbance for which the accused was culpably responsible, or by any provocation, event or situation for which the accused was culpably responsible, or when there is no causal relationship between the provocation, event or situation which caused the extreme emotional distress and the victim of the murder. Evidence of voluntary intoxication shall not be admissible for the purpose of showing that the accused was acting under the influence of extreme emotional distress.
Rivera v. State, 351 A.2d 561 (Del. 1976). · cites it 2ד2 *562 The defendant also charges error, and violation of due process and equal protection, in that the jury instruction limited the mitigating defense of extreme emotional distress to the crime of murder in the first degree, as specified by 11 Del.”
State v. Moyer, 387 A.2d 194 (Del. 1978). · cites it 2דIf the answer to A is yes, are not, under 11 Del.”
Fuentes v. State, 349 A.2d 1 (Del. 1975). · cites it 2דIn this murder case, the determinative issue is the constitutionality of 11 Del.C. § 641. 1 *3 I. The defendant was charged with murder in the first degree, 11 Del.”
Brown v. United States, 584 A.2d 537 (D.C. 1990). “Michie) (“The fact that the accused intentionally caused the death of another person under the influence of extreme emotional distress is a mitigating circumstance, reducing the crime of murder in the first degree ... to the crime of manslaughter.”
Pendry v. State, 367 A.2d 627 (Del. 1976). · cites it 2דTimothy left the trailer, returned with a shotgun, and fired the three shots which killed the victim.”
Eaton v. State, 363 A.2d 440 (Del. 1976). · cites it 2דIn accordance with the provisions of 11 Del.C. § 641, 3 the Trial Judge charged the jury that the defendant had the burden of proving extreme emotional distress as an affirmative defense, by a preponderance of the evidence, in order to reduce the crime of murder in the first…”
Bailey v. Snyder, 855 F. Supp. 1392 (D. Del. 1993). “See 11 Del.C. § 641. In support of his defense, Bailey presented the following evidence: (1) Bailey’s mother died when he was less than a year old and his father died when he was six; (2) from age six to fourteen, Bailey lived in various foster homes; (3) after Bailey and his…”
Bailey v. Snyder, 826 F. Supp. 804 (D. Del. 1993). “See 11 Del.C. § 641. . In support of his defense, Bailey presented the following evidence: (1) Bailey’s mother died when he was less than a year old and his father died when he was six; (2) from age six to fourteen, Bailey lived in various foster homes; (3) after Bailey and his…”
Ortiz v. Coupe (D. Del. 2021). · cites it 2דtrial was the affirmative defense of EED," which would reduce the sevetity of punishment for the homicide from that for first degree murder to that for 10The fact that the accused intentionally caused the death of another person under the influence of extteme emotional distress…”
Smith v. State (Del. Super. Ct. 2025). · cites it 2דPursuant to 11 Del. C. § 641, “[t]he fact that the accused intentionally caused the death of another person under the influence of extreme emotional distress is a mitigating circumstance, reducing the crime of murder in the first degree .”
Smith v. State (Del. 2025). · cites it 2ד” Instead, under 11 Del. C. § 641, it is a “mitigating circumstance” that “is not the same as asserting a basis for legal innocence.”
State v. Prince (Del. Super. Ct. 2022). “60 Compare 11 Del. C. § 641, with 11 Del. C. §§ 531, 632, 636.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.