Barton-Smith v. State

Summary

The court affirmed Barton-Smith’s convictions, holding that the evidence did not support a voluntary-manslaughter instruction because his claimed fear of being shot did not constitute sufficient provocation. It also held that the trial court’s interruptions during cross-examination were permissible efforts to prevent witness confusion, and that any mistaken impression about the witness’s prior statements was harmless. The court independently found the evidence legally sufficient to support the convictions.