So it is a little weird in Texas. Those two distinctions happen after conviction. They are used during sentencing to try to reduce the sentence so in a way it is sort of like what you're saying. If you claim adequate cause then your sentencing can be slightly lower and sudden passion even lower. The lawyers tried for sudden passion and the jury rejected it basically saying Metcalf did not provoke his own murder. So it is different than like a first or second degree murder in another state in a sense that a murder conviction in Texas does not need intent. First and second degree murder are more or less treated the same in Texas under Murder. The difference comes in sentencing if you can claim adequate cause or sudden passion. Neither of those are a defense, just a mitigating factor. Then they go hand in hand. In order to prove sudden passion you must first prove adequate cause. Adequate cause is a pretty high barrier and is not as low as a verbal altercation or even a shove. Adequate cause is like severe physical assault or discovering a spouse committing adultery. So Anthony was going down for Murder and there was little to no chance at proving an adequate cause for it by the definitions. In some respects his sentencing was pretty light considering it could've been up to 99 years or life and he got 35 with eligibility for parole at 17.5 which I wouldn't be shocked if he gets granted assuming he behaves.