United States v. Sockey.
No. 24-7063. 11/4/2025. E.D.Okla. Judge Kelly. First Degree Murder—Voluntary Manslaughter—“Words Alone” Jury Instruction.
November 4, 2025
Sockey is a member of the Choctaw Nation who lived in a home with several of his relatives. The family members often picked on each other and used nicknames. After a night of drinking, Sockey’s relatives Bolin and Tubby called him names. Sockey laughed and went to his room and closed the door behind him, but 5 to 10 minutes later, Sockey emerged from his room with a knife in his hand. Sockey held the knife to Tubby’s neck and told him to “keep talking . . . trash.” Tubby then grabbed Sockey’s knife-holding hand and a struggle ensued. Tubby ended up on top of Sockey, and Sockey reached around with the knife and stabbed Tubby several times in the back of his head, neck, and shoulder. Tubby died a short time later from his injuries. Sockey was charged with murder. His defense was that he acted out of heat of passion, reducing his culpability to voluntary manslaughter. Sockey did not propose any jury instructions. The district court instructed the jury on the lesser-included offense of voluntary manslaughter, and over Sockey’s objection, the court also instructed that “words alone” cannot “negate malice aforethought and create heat of passion.” Sockey was convicted of first degree murder in Indian Country and sentenced to life imprisonment.
On appeal, Sockey contended that the district court erred in instructing the jury that “words alone” cannot negate malice aforethought, maintaining that there is no support for the “words alone” instruction in Tenth Circuit case law, the manslaughter statute, or the Tenth Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions. The Tenth Circuit has never explicitly held that words alone cannot provoke heat of passion manslaughter under 18 USC § 1112(a), and such language is not included in the pattern jury instructions. Here, the district court’s instruction reflected the well-settled principle articulated in Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 (1896), that provocation by “mere words” is not sufficient to reduce a crime from murder to manslaughter.
Sockey also argued that Tubby’s teasing words were the last straw of bullying, and the jury was unable to consider this defense theory because the “words alone” instruction foreclosed the jury’s consideration of all the evidence, including the evidence tending to show subjective provocation. A heat of passion defense requires both subjective and objective provocation. Here, the court’s instruction did not prohibit the jury from considering the subjective element but only clarified that, as a matter of law, words alone cannot satisfy the objective element.
Sockey also asserted that the “words alone” instruction had the effect of endorsing the government’s position because the instruction communicated to the jury that the evidence was insufficient to support voluntary manslaughter as a matter of law. However, the district court did nothing to “endorse” the government’s position, and the government’s emphasis on the instruction during closing arguments did not affect whether the instruction was correct.
The conviction was affirmed.