The most famous case in which this occurred was the "Jenny Jones" case, in which Jonathan Schmitz was tried for the first-degree murder of Scott Amedure and was instead found guilty of the lesser offense of second-degree murder.
While using the gay panic defense to explain insanity has typically not been successful in winning a complete acquittal, diminished capacity, provocation, and self-defense have all been used successfully to reduce charges and sentences.
Historically, in US courts, use of the gay panic defense has not typically resulted in the acquittal of the defendant; instead, the defendant was usually found guilty, but on lesser charges, or judges and juries may have cited homosexual solicitation as a mitigating factor, resulting in reduced culpability and sentences.
AB 2501 states that discovery of, knowledge about, or potential disclosure of the victim's actual or perceived gender, gender identity, gender expression, or sexual orientation does not, by itself, constitute sufficient provocation to justify a lesser charge of voluntary manslaughter.
The gay panic defense is generally invoked in cases where the guilt of the defendant is unquestioned, but only to strengthen a more "traditional criminal law defense such as insanity, diminished capacity, provocation, or self-defense" and is not meant to provide justification of the crime on its own.
After returning to the upstairs bedroom, Dubbels reportedly put his arm around Shelley, and Shelley responded by attacking and killing Dubbels.
Shelley was arrested, found guilty of first-degree murder in 1976, and sentenced to life imprisonment.the report from the South Australian Law Reform Institute and the outcome of any further appeal from the unsuccessful defendant appeal against the Supreme Court of South Australia - Court of Criminal appeal decision (R v Lindsay  SASCF 129) re-affirming the validity of the 23-year minimum sentence in the murder conviction (retrial jury verdict on 30 March 2016) of Michael Joseph Lindsay for the stabbing death of Andrew Negre.The defendant's appeal against his original conviction (original jury verdict on 1 April 2011) saw the Australian High Court re-affirm the validity of Homosexual Advance Defence (Lindsay v the Queen  HCA 17).Although the homosexual advance defence cannot be found anywhere in legislation, its entrenchment in case law gives it the force of law.[...] Several Australian states and territories have either abolished the umbrella defence of provocation entirely or excluded non-violent homosexual advances from its ambit.The defendant alleges to find the same-sex sexual advances so offensive and frightening that it brings on a psychotic state characterized by unusual violence.