Hannah v. Commonwealth

In today's world, Hannah v. Commonwealth has become a topic of great relevance and interest to a wide spectrum of people and organizations. Whether due to its impact on society, its historical relevance or its influence on daily life, Hannah v. Commonwealth has captured the attention of experts and the curious alike. In this article, we will explore the different facets of Hannah v. Commonwealth, from its origins to its evolution today, analyzing its influence in various areas and reflecting on its importance for the future. Hannah v. Commonwealth is a fascinating topic that invites us to reflect and question our perceptions, and we are excited to delve into its study in the pages that follow.

Hannah v. Commonwealth
CourtSupreme Court of Virginia
Full case name Harris Hannah v. Commonwealth.
DecidedSeptember 19, 1929 (1929-09-19)
Citations149 S.E. 419; 153 Va. 863
Court membership
Judges sittingRobert R. Prentis, Jesse F. West, Preston White Campbell, Richard Henry Lee Chichester, Henry W. Holt

Hannah v. Commonwealth, 153 Va. 863, 149 S.E. 419 (1929) is a Supreme Court of Virginia case that is often cited for distinguishing the "heat of passion" from malice as the motive in a crime.[1] The formulation is:

'Malice aforethought' implies a mind under the sway of reason, whereas 'passion' whilst it does not imply a dethronement of reason, yet it is the furor brevis, which renders a man deaf to the voice of reason so that, although the act was intentional to death, it was not the result of malignity of heart, but imputable to human infirmity. Passion and malice are, therefore, inconsistent motive powers, and hence an act which proceeds from the one, cannot also proceed from the other.

References

  1. ^ Criminal Law Cases and Materials, 7th ed.. 2012, John Kaplan, Robert Weisberg, Guyora Binder


Stub icon

This article relating to case law in the United States or its constituent jurisdictions is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.