But "[t]his is an objective standard, and an individual defendant's emotional defects are irrelevant to the issue of whether he or she acted in the heat of passion." 3A Jeffrey Jackson et al., Encyclopedia Mississippi Law § 23:65 (3d ed. updated Oct. 2022) (citing Dabney v. State , 772 So. 2d 1065, 1069 (Miss. Ct. App. 2000) ). The question of whether the accused acted in the heat of passion, and therefore without malice, "is an objective one, being whether a reasonable man would have been so provoked."

2003) (The question of whether the defendant acted in the heat of passion "is an objective one, being whether a reasonable person would have been so provoked."); Keys v. State, 33 So.3d 1143, 1148 (Miss.Ct.App. 2009) ("[T]he determination of whether the defendant acted in the heat of passion and without malice is an objective question. That question is whether a reasonable person would have been so provoked."); Dabney v. State, 772 So.2d 1065, 1069 (Miss.Ct. App. 2000) ("[T]he question of whether the accused has acted in the heat of passion is to be resolved by utilization of an objective standard. . . . . The standard presupposes an individual without serious mental and emotional defects."). ¶ 57.

¶ 12. In the case of Dabney v. State, 772 So.2d 1065, 1069 (¶ 13) (Miss.Ct.App.2000), the defendant argued that his mild retardation should have been taken into account when determining whether he was reasonably provoked in shooting someone. This Court stated the following: