The Williams Institute

Would a statute that defined sufficient provocation for "sudden quarrel" or "heat of passion" to exclude gay and trans panic defenses violate defendants' due process rights? No. In determining whether such a statute violated a defendants' due process rights, a court would follow the U.S. Supreme Court's reasoning in Montana v. Egelhoff, 518 U.S. 37 (1996), which upheld a Montana statute prohibiting consideration of a defendant's voluntary intoxication in determining the mens rea element of any criminal offense.