# data[].attributes.body
Hampton man found guilty of voluntary manslaughter

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
HAMPTON - A Hampton jury wasn't convinced that a defendant fatally shot a man in self-defense last year, but they also didn't believe he committed murder.

Patrick Roberts was found guilty of voluntary manslaughter Thursday in the May 5, 2013 death of Charlie Woodbury. Woodbury, 27, was shot just before 2 a.m. in the parking lot of Jack's Family Restaurant, in the 1400 block of East Pembroke Avenue.

Roberts faced second-degree murder and a use of a firearm charge. The jury found him not guilty of both those charges and convicted him of the lesser charge of voluntary manslaughter. The jury, comprised of nine women and three men, deliberated for close to an hour and a half before knocking on the jury room door with the verdicts.

Roberts gave no outward reaction when the verdicts were read.

"We are glad we got a verdict, but it is definitely not the verdict we thought we were going to get," said Dwayne Woodbery, the victim's uncle. "We thought we were going to get murder, but they gave us the minimum. Hopefully they won't give us the minimum with the manslaughter sentence."

Voluntary manslaughter is punishable by 1 to 10 years in prison. A sentencing hearing for Roberts will be held Friday at 9 a.m. before Hampton Circuit Judge Wilford Taylor Jr.

Defense attorneys Jim Gochenour and Michele Cavanaugh argued that because Roberts believed that his life was threatened, he was legally justified in shooting Woodbury.

"He testified he was in fear for his aunt's life and his life," Cavanaugh said in her closing argument. "Place yourself in his shoes. If you were faced with these factors, should you be found guilty of murder?"
Chaotic parking lot
Roberts testified that he shot Woodbury because he was defending himself and his aunt, Youlina Gamble. Roberts said he didn't know Woodbury, but noticed him in the restaurant because he was starting trouble with others who were at the restaurant that night.

Several people were at Jack's to watch a boxing match. When the restaurant closed its doors that morning, several witnesses testified there were at least two other brawls in the parking lot at the time of the shooting, making for a chaotic scene in the early morning hours.

Robert's aunt was involved in one of the fights. Roberts said that when Woodbury swung his knife in her direction, that's when he fired the fatal shot. Roberts testified that Woodbury and another man were about to get in a separate fight in the parking lot. But before the fight occurred, Roberts said he told Woodbury to "chill." He says Woodbury told him that he had nothing to do with the dispute and he didn't have a problem with him. Next, Roberts says he saw Woodbury's knife.

"I just saw him swing the knife," Roberts testified. "I withdraw the gun I have on me, when he swings, he rotates, and I pulled the gun out."

Roberts testified that Woodbury reached for his gun.

"I don't know if he was trying to grab the gun, but I just shot one time out of fear for my life or that he was going to stab my aunt," Roberts said.

Several other witnesses said they saw Woodbury with a folding knife at the restaurant. Most of the witnesses said his knife was behind him and he was not threatening anyone with it. One witness said he threatened her with the knife, but she wasn't in fear of him because she believed he was playing with her.
Distance
The distance from where Woodbury was killed to where the fights were going on in the restaurant's parking lot was unclear. Roberts and two others who witnessed the shooting gave different answers.

Roberts testified that the shooting occurred right beside the fights, but two others said it was on the other side of the parking lot. Antonio Newsome testified that the shooting occurred, "25 feet from the melee."

"Why is Charlie Woodbury not here?" asked Senior Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney Adrienne Mauney in her closing argument. "Why, because this man killed him. That man pulled out his gun and shot him. This was not a case of self-defense or him trying to defend his aunt."

Mauney argued that if Roberts was as close to his aunt when the fatal shot was fired as he said, she would have stopped fighting because of the loud sound of the gun.

Gamble testified that she heard a shot while she was fighting, but that she couldn't stop because the woman she was fighting was still swinging at her.

Woodbury, known as Candy Man, was a father of three. His family described him as a jokester. They said he was trying to start a new life for him and his family. He was scheduled to start classes at Thomas Nelson Community College the day after he was killed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Hampton man found guilty of voluntary manslaughter

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
HAMPTON - A Hampton jury wasn't convinced that a defendant fatally shot a man in self-defense last year, but they also didn't believe he committed murder. Patrick Roberts was found guilty of voluntary manslaughter Thursday in the May 5, 2013 death of Charlie Woodbury. Woodbury, 27, was shot just before 2 a.m.

# data[].attributes.body
To kill someone without the prior intent, the actions being justified as an act in "a heat of passion".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Voluntary manslaughter is a crime that occurs when someone kills another person with no prior intent to harm or kill, but under a sudden circumstance that made him mentally or emotionally distraught. Voluntary manslaughter is often referred to as killing in the "heat of passion." The difference between voluntary manslaughter and murder is often the provocation to kill. To explore this concept, consider the following voluntary manslaughter definition.

Definition of Voluntary Manslaughter
Noun

The intentionally killing of a person by another who had no prior intent to kill.
Origin
7th Century B.C. The concept of manslaughter vs. murder was first introduced by Ancient Athenian lawmaker Graco.

What is Voluntary Manslaughter

Voluntary manslaughter is a criminal act that occurs when a person kills without premeditation, and after serious provocation. The act takes place when there has been adequate action that causes an ordinarily reasonable person to lose control and commit the crime in passion. It can also occur when a person kills another without malice, which means he did not have a prior intent to harm the victim, or to cause his death. The exact definition of voluntary manslaughter varies by state, but in any jurisdiction, it is a very serious criminal offense.
For example:
John comes home early one evening to find his wife Sharon having extramarital affairs with another man. John is normally level headed, but seeing his wife with another man causes him to become so distressed and angry that he picks up the heavy lamp by the bed, and hits the other man over the head with it, killing him. In this example of voluntary manslaughter, John faces voluntary manslaughter charges, as he had no prior ill will toward the man, but acted in the heat of passion.

Federal Definition of Manslaughter

Manslaughter is generally considered to be the killing of another person "in the heat of passion." While the laws of each jurisdiction may vary, federal law defines "manslaughter" as:

(a) Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice. It is of two kinds:

Voluntary-Upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion.

Involuntary-In the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to a felony, or in the commission in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and circumspection, of a lawful act which might produce death.

(b) Within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States,

Whoever is guilty of voluntary manslaughter, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both;

Whoever is guilty of involuntary manslaughter, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six years, or both.

Manslaughter in the Heat of Passion

Manslaughter is generally considered to be the killing of another person "in the heat of passion." The specific definition of "heat of passion" varies, depending on the situation, and potentially by the laws of the jurisdiction in which the crime was committed. To consider charging a killing as voluntary manslaughter, there are four elements that must be met. If any of these elements are not met, the individual may be charged with murder.

Required Elements of Voluntary Manslaughter

The provocation or goading must have been sufficient to incite any reasonable person to lose control.

The provocation must have ACTUALLY caused the defendant to lose control. The loss of control cannot have been triggered by something else, even if the proven provocation was sufficient.

The amount of time that passes between the act of provocation and the actual killing must be very brief. So brief as to not allow a reasonable person to cool down and reclaim his or her composure.

The defendant must have personally failed to compose himself before the act of killing. If the defendant did in fact composed himself after the provocation, and before the killing, the act may be considered premeditated, and a murder charge may apply.

Difference Between Voluntary Manslaughter and Involuntary Manslaughter

There is a difference between voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter. Voluntary manslaughter occurs when the perpetrator intentionally kills another person without prior intent to do so, such as in the heat of passion. The perpetrator could be described as having malice, though only at the time the killing occurs, not prior to the incident.

Involuntary manslaughter occurs when the perpetrator unintentionally kills another person when committing another crime, or when engaging in reckless behavior, with an indifference to human life, that caused the person's death. In involuntary manslaughter, there is no intent to kill, no malice, even at the time the killing occurs.

Example of Involuntary Manslaughter

Dr. Robert is treating an older patient for complaints of breathing problems. Dr. Robert fails to notice that the man's oxygen tube is not properly hooked up, and the man stops breathing. As a result, the patient dies, and the doctor is charged with criminally negligent manslaughter, which is a form of involuntary manslaughter. The charges are based on his negligent care of the patient, even though he did not intend to kill or harm him.

Vehicular Manslaughter

Vehicular manslaughter differs from voluntary manslaughter in the fact that the perpetrator had no intention of harming another, even at the time of the killing. Vehicular manslaughter is the killing of another person while operating a motor vehicle in a reckless manner. Vehicular manslaughter does not only apply in cases of DUI, but any time a driver is aware that he is driving in a dangerous or reckless manner that could harm others, but ignores the risk.

In some jurisdictions, causing a death by driving recklessly is also known as "vehicular homicide." Texting, or using any device, while driving is known to be dangerous, and ignoring that risk could subject a driver to charges of vehicular manslaughter.

Example of Vehicular Manslaughter

A large group of high-schoolers is hanging around in a vacant field one day, racing their cars, and generally showing off. Martin drives his car out into the middle of the small field and begins racing in circles, doing "donuts." He's having a great time, with all of the girls screaming and cheering him on, as they step back with each expanding rotation. Suddenly, Martin hits a small rock in the dirt, loses control of the steering wheel momentarily, and his car spins out, striking two teens, killing one of them, and putting the other in the hospital for several days.

Martin had no intention of harming anyone ... all of the kids were just having fun. He did know, or should have known, that the activity was dangerous, but he ignored the potential danger. Martin was voluntarily engaging in a dangerous activity which was the direct cause of someone's death. This is a type of voluntary manslaughter, classified as vehicular manslaughter in most states.

Defenses to Voluntary Manslaughter

A charge of voluntary manslaughter is a felony and, in its prosecution, very much like a charge of murder. Possible defenses to voluntary manslaughter are also similar to those for a murder charge. Virtually all of the possible defenses to manslaughter, attempt to convince the jury that the defendant did not commit the crime, or that it was somehow someone else's fault. Some of the most common defenses to voluntary manslaughter include:

Self-defense

While a claim of self-defense may absolve a person from a charge of manslaughter, there are a number of elements that must be met. Self-defense refers to the act of protecting oneself, or another person, from severe bodily harm or death. Violence takes many forms, and each person's perception and level of fear is different. It is not always necessary to kill the perpetrator in order to protect oneself or another.

This is where the two types of self-defense claims come in. Self-defense is divided into two types, "perfect," and "imperfect" self-defense. The difference between self-defense and imperfect self-defense hinges on whether the defendant's belief that deadly force was necessary is reasonable to other people. If a jury does not think the defendant's belief would have been held by another reasonable person, the defense is imperfect. In such a case, the defendant's charges or punishment may be mitigated or reduced, but not dismissed.
For example:
Andrew and Martin are across-the-street neighbors. They get into a heated argument outside one evening, and Andrew picks up a medium-size rock and tosses it across the street yelling obscenities. Martin becomes enraged, picks up the rock, then charges across the street and begins bashing the rock against Andrew's head. Andrew dies from his injuries, and Martin is charged with voluntary manslaughter.

Martin's defense attorney attempts to claim he was defending himself against Andrew's violent actions, and that he didn't intend to kill the man. Testimony leads the jury to believe that Martin actually believed his life was in danger, and that he needed to use deadly force to protect himself. The jury must consider whether other reasonable people, in the same situation, would also feel deadly force was necessary. In this example of voluntary manslaughter, the jury found Martin's defense imperfect, and recommended he be sentenced to the lesser of the 5-10 years in prison.

Actual Innocence

The best defense to voluntary manslaughter is not having committed the crime in the first place. When a person is charged with a crime, the prosecution has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty. If the prosecution fails to do this, or if the jury doesn't believe that there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant is presumed innocent. It may not be necessary to actually prove actual innocence, but to create doubt about the prosecution's claim that the defendant committed the crime.

Insanity

If the defendant can prove he met the legal definition of insanity at the time of the killing, the court may not hold him accountable for his actions. The specific definition of insanity varies by jurisdiction, but in any case, such a claim requires the defendant be evaluated by court-appointed psychiatric professionals. In generally, an insanity defense is based on whether the defendant understood his actions, and their consequences, and whether he was able to distinguish between right and wrong. Not all states have an insanity defense to criminal acts.

Accidental Killing

If the defendant can show that the killing occurred due to an accident, the charges may be reduced to involuntary manslaughter.

Penalties for Voluntary Manslaughter

In most jurisdictions, voluntary manslaughter is a first-degree felony, so it carries a serious sentence. Criminal penalties for voluntary manslaughter may include:

A prison sentence of up to 30 years

A steep fine

Restitution

Mandatory counseling or anger management classes

There may also be civil penalties for voluntary manslaughter, as the victim's family may file a civil lawsuit against the perpetrator. The family may ask the court to award them damages based on the wrongful death of their loved one. These damages may also include payment for infliction of emotional distress. The civil court can award the victim's family damages even if the perpetrator is acquitted in criminal court, or if he is not criminally charged with voluntary manslaughter.

Voluntary Manslaughter Example

In Orlando, California, police had frequented the home of Daniel Byers, on reports of child abuse, child neglect, domestic abuse, and drug-related offenses. In early July, 2015, Daniel's daughter, 19-year old Dusti Byers, claimed she attempted to protect herself and her sister from their father during a domestic dispute. Dusti picked up her father's gun and shot him in the back. Unfortunately, the bullet passed through him, and struck her 16-year old sister Jennifer in the face. Both Daniel and Jennifer died.

Police arrived at the residence and found Dusti on the far side of the lot with a gunshot wound to the head. She had apparently tried to commit suicide after shooting her father, and accidentally killing the sister she was trying to protect. Dusti lived, and was eventually charged with murder of both family members. As the case progressed, Dusti was offered a plea bargain. If should would plead guilty to voluntary manslaughter of both victims, the district attorney would drop the murder charges, which may have gotten her more than 40 years in the state prison. Pleading guilty to manslaughter reduced her maximum possible sentence to 27 years.

Dusti's actions in the heat of the moment constitute voluntary manslaughter of her father. While the accidental killing of her sister might not appear to meet the elements of voluntary manslaughter, apparently Dusti's attorney agreed to the charge under a theory of "transferred intent." In this example of voluntary manslaughter, the doctrine of transferred intent allows a person who intended to harm or kill one person, but whose actions accidentally killed another person, to be held criminally responsible for the second victim's death.

Related Legal Terms and Issues

Civil lawsuit - A lawsuit brought about in court when one person claims to have suffered a loss due to the actions of another person.

Criminal Charge - A formal accusation by a prosecuting authority that an individual has committed a crime.

Damages - A monetary award in compensation for a financial loss, loss of or damage to personal or real property, or an injury.

Defendant - A party against whom a lawsuit has been filed in civil court, or who has been accused of, or charged with, a crime or offense.

Emotional Distress - A negative emotional reaction, such as anguish, humiliation, or grief, resulting from the conduct of another individual. Also referred to as "mental anguish."

Felony - A crime, often involving violence, regarded as more serious than a misdemeanor. Felony crimes are usually punishable by imprisonment more than one year.

Hearing - A proceeding before the court at which an issue of fact or law is heard, evidence presented, and a decision made.

Intent - A resolve to perform an act for a specific purpose; a resolution to use a particular means to a specific end.

Jurisdiction - The legal authority to hear legal cases and make judgments; the geographical region of authority to enforce justice.

Jury - A group of people sworn to render a verdict in a trial, based on evidence presented.

Perpetrator - A person who commits an illegal or criminal act.

Restitution - The restoration of rights or property previously taken away or surrendered; reparation made by giving compensation for loss or injury caused by wrongdoing.

Victim - A person who is injured, killed, or otherwise harmed as a result of a criminal act, accident, or other event.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Voluntary Manslaughter - Definition, Examples, Cases

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Voluntary manslaughter is a crime that occurs when someone kills another person with no prior intent to harm or kill, but under a sudden circumstance that made him mentally or emotionally distraught. Voluntary manslaughter is often referred to as killing in the "heat of passion."

# data[].attributes.body
Voluntary Manslaughter is the intention to harm, with no prior intent to kill. However, in "a heat of passion", the intended harm leading to death is when voluntary manslaughter charges take place.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Voluntary manslaughter is commonly defined as an intentional killing in which the offender had no prior intent to kill, such as a killing that occurs in the "heat of passion." The circumstances leading to the killing must be the kind that would cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed; otherwise, the killing may be charged as a first-degree or second-degree murder.

For example, Dan comes home to find his wife in bed with Victor. In the heat of the moment, Dan picks up a golf club from next to the bed and strikes Victor in the head, killing him instantly.

On the spectrum of homicides, this offense lies somewhere in between the killing of another with malice aforethought (aka, murder) and the excusable, justified, or privileged taking of life that does not constitute a crime, such as some instances of self-defense.

Voluntary manslaughter is a separate concept from involuntary manslaughter and has several definitions depending on what state the crime occurs in. Involuntary manslaughter, on the other hand, occurs when someone dies as a result of the defendant's non-felonious illegal act or as a consequence of the defendant's irresponsibility or recklessness.
A Killing in the "Heat of Passion"
Federal law defines voluntary manslaughter as the unlawful killing of a human being without malice [u]pon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion.

The exact meaning of the heat of passion varies depending on the situation, but the term generally refers to an irresistible emotion that an ordinarily reasonable person would experience under the same facts and circumstances. This idea of an irresistible impulse contrasts with the idea of premeditation present in first degree murder, and a showing of one necessarily negates the other.

For example, if Adam sees a perfect stranger, Bob, desecrating a religious monument and flies into a rage during which he kills Bob, the state would likely charge Adam with voluntary manslaughter, not murder. If, on the other hand, Adam had a long-standing, uncontrollable hatred for Bob because of his criticism of Adams faith, and Adam hid and waited for Bob to desecrate the monument with the intent kill Bob, then the state would most likely bring a murder charge against Adam.

States sometimes also define voluntary manslaughter as a homicide that occurs with the mistaken belief that the killing was justified. For instance, if the defendant kills in self-defense, but was the original aggressor in the situation that led to the homicide, the state could potentially charge the killing as voluntary manslaughter. In addition, voluntary manslaughter can also encompass a homicide that occurs based on the defendant's honest but unreasonable belief that a situation requires deadly force.
Get Legal Help with Your Voluntary Manslaughter Case
If you're facing charges as serious as voluntary manslaughter, you have most likely spoken with an expert criminal defense attorney already. If you haven't, you should do so immediately to understand the penalties for the charges you're facing and the defenses available to you as you move forward. Even for less severe crimes or for evaluations of family members' convictions and plea agreements, your best option is to reach out to a criminal defense attorney in your area.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Voluntary Manslaughter Overview - FindLaw

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Voluntary manslaughter is commonly defined as an intentional killing in which the offender had no prior intent to kill, such as a killing that occurs in the "heat of passion." The circumstances leading to the killing must be the kind that would cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed; otherwise, the killing may be charged as a first-degree or second-degree murder.

# data[].attributes.body
Provided below are Canadian homicide stats. from 2011-2015

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Homicide offences, number and rate, by province and territory (Number of homicides)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Summary Table. Find data on the number and rate of homicide offences by province and territory by year. Homicide offences include murder, manslaughter and infanticide. Number of homicides.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
TORONTO - A man escorting his girlfriend to her home Sunday night discovered signs of entry to her house and, fearing for the woman's mother sleeping inside, searched for intruders. A man was found hiding, Toronto police said. An ensuing struggle left the intruder bleeding from stab wounds.

As frightening as the incident was, it is the charging of the boyfriend with aggravated assault, punishable by 14 years in prison, that makes the case stand out in a clutter of urban crime.

It is the latest flashpoint in the debate over self-defence and protection of property after a number of high-profile cases across Canada brought a clamour for clarity and change.

Defence lawyers yesterday said it's the sort of case that a defendant - the 28-year-old man charged with the stabbing - would want to be decided by a jury, where citizens can imagine themselves in a similar circumstance and ponder what they might do.

"You can defend your property, you can defend persons in your charge and you can defend yourself. In this case he can make an argument to all three, but he has to use proportional force," said Gordon Dykstra, a criminal defence attorney in Abbotsford, B.C.

"I think if he gets in front of a jury and he's halfway presentable, if he doesn't have a criminal record and makes a good case for what happened, a jury will acquit him."

But Toronto police suggest this might not be a perfect example for champions of self-defence rights.

"The man was charged because it is alleged the stabbing was excessive," said Constable Tonyo Vella. "It is alleged that he stabbed the man a number of times. He's fortunate to be alive."

Key to the case is that the multiple stab wounds were inflicted both inside the home and outside, Const. Vella said, suggesting the occupants might have been able to close the door once he was outside and call police.

The scene of the incident was Parson Court, a pleasant street in west Toronto filled with large homes. The 32-year-old man who was stabbed was charged with break and enter.

Neither accused could be reached for comment.

Recent self-defence cases have not gone well for prosecutors.

Last month, Lawrence Manzer, of Burton, N.B., had a mistrial declared in charges stemming from a confrontation with intruders on his neighbour's property. Sloppy paperwork was cited as the reason.

The same month Kim Walker, a Yorkton, Sask., welder, was sentenced to eight years after a jury declined to find him guilty of murder for killing his daughter's boyfriend whom he deemed to be destroying his drug-addicted 16-year-old daughter. He was found guilty of the lesser charge of manslaughter.

In May, Joseph Singleton, 46, a farmer in Taber, Alta., had his charges - for assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm, after he wounded a man who had just burgled his house with the blunt end of a hatchet - referred to an alternative measures program.

In March, prosecutors dropped gun charges against Ian Thomson, 53, of Port Colborne, Ont., who shot at three masked men caught firebombing his home while one yelled: "Are you ready to die?" The Crown said there was no reasonable prospect of conviction.

And last October, David Chen, a Toronto grocer in Chinatown became a celebrity when he was acquitted of charges after he tied up a repeat shoplifter in a citizen's arrest.

Peter Lindsay, who represented Mr. Chen, said the public is galvanized by such stories.

"The courts have repeatedly said the self-defence sections of the Criminal Code are incredibly complicated. The provisions are really complex and are in need of an overhaul to simplify them," said Mr. Lindsay.

"For the public to have confidence in the system, it is important for the system to be sympathetic to the victims of crime and understand to some degree who is the good guy and who is the bad guy.

"But that has to be balanced. You don't have a right to just attack someone because they broke into your house. This is not the U.S.A. where your home is your castle and you have carte blanche once an intruder is inside your house."

Stephen Harper, the Prime Minister, announced changes to the Criminal Code that would broaden the citizen's arrest and self-defence laws but the amendments died with the dissolution of Parliament prior to the May election.

The bill will again be put forward this fall.

"We do intend to reintroduce that change this fall and get it passed as soon as possible," said Andrew Bernardo, spokesman for Rob Nicholson, Minister of Justice.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
TORONTO - A man escorting his girlfriend to her home Sunday night discovered signs of entry to her house and, fearing for the woman's mother sleeping inside, searched for intruders. A man was found hiding, Toronto police said. An ensuing struggle left the intruder bleeding from stab wounds.

# data[].attributes.body
Man guilty of voluntary manslaughter for shooting girlfriend

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A jury on Friday found a man guilty of voluntary manslaughter for shooting to death his girlfriend during an argument outside a west Modesto home.

Tom Franks, 46, faces a maximum sentence of 37 years in prison for the death of Jacqueline Millan. That maximum sentence includes additional time for using a gun, committing the crime while out on bail and having a previous conviction on two counts of robbery.

Deputy District Attorney Annette Rees said Millan's family was satisfied with the verdict because it means Franks still faces a lengthy prison sentence. Though investigators never found the gun used to kill Millan, the prosecutor felt the jury had enough evidence to prove Franks shot his girlfriend.

"It happened during an argument. That's voluntary manslaughter," Rees said in the courthouse hallway.

Michael Scheid, Franks' attorney, argued that his client did not shoot Millan. He said the missing murder weapon should have played a bigger role in the jury's decision, and choosing not to find his client guilty of second-degree murder shows the jury was skeptical of the prosecution's case.

"It was probably a compromise, with the verdict," Scheid said about the jury's decision. "They must have had some doubt."

Nevertheless, the defense attorney felt the jury did the best it could and probably would have liked to have seen more evidence. He argued in the trial that a neighbor spotted another man running toward Millan moments before the shooting, and investigators never found any gunshot residue on Franks.

Millan was shot about 9:40 p.m. May 4, 2012, while standing near the edge of a driveway at a home the couple had been renovating in the 1600 block of Vernon Avenue, a few blocks northeast of Paradise and Carpenter roads. The 48-year-old woman died at a hospital six days later.

The neighbor testified he heard Millan arguing with Franks and could see her standing near the driveway. He then heard three shots. He said he saw the silhouette of a tall, skinny man running out of an alley toward Millan shortly before he heard the gunfire.

The prosecutor told the jury Franks fired a gun three times at Millan, missing her twice, from where he stood near the garage. But one bullet struck her head and fragmented in her brain.

Ultimately, Franks told investigators that he and Millan had argued earlier that night at a Paradise Road home. He said he left and went to the Vernon Avenue home. Millan showed up later, he said, banging on the door and accusing him of cheating with another woman.

Franks said a struggle ensued and Millan was swinging at him on the home's front porch. The struggle moved to the front yard before Franks bear-hugged her. Franks told investigators he heard a gunshot before he let go of Millan and went back in the house.

The defendant said he last saw Millan walking toward the street. He told investigators he went to sleep and didn't check on her.

The jury of 10 women and two men began deliberations Friday morning and reached a verdict about 3:30 p.m. But the judge sent the jurors back to the jury room because they did not have a unanimous verdict on the gun enhancement.

One juror said she did not agree that Franks used a gun during the crime, even though a forensic pathologist testified that Millan died from a single gunshot wound. There was no evidence indicating Millan died any other way.

The jury returned to the courtroom about 10 minutes later with a unanimous verdict on the gun enhancement.

Stanislaus Superior Court Judge Ricardo Córdova directed Franks to return to the courtroom Tuesday. The defendant's sentencing hearing will likely be scheduled then.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Jury: Man guilty of voluntary manslaughter for shooting girlfriend

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A jury on Friday found a man guilty of voluntary manslaughter for shooting to death his girlfriend during an argument outside a west Modesto home. Tom Franks, 46, faces a maximum sentence of 37 years in prison for the death of Jacqueline Millan.