[brief] (28T 42-14 to 19)  [...] testified that [...] had “show[n] up twice” in 2018 after he no longer lived with the [...], but prior to January 9, 2019, and that she was there for one of those occasions, in October 2018, when [...] was “banging on the front door” and spoke and acted as if he had a gun, which caused them to change the locks on both houses on the property.  (29T 158-21 to 161-17)  That incident made her fear for defendant’s safety thereafter.  (31T 25-13 to 21)  When she got a call from defendant at 5:46 p.m., while she was at a grocery store, on January 9, she went to the house, and, when she arrived about eight minutes later, she believed [...] to be dead already when she “checked” him.  (29T 163-13 to 166-15; 29T 184-3 to 185-17)  A gun was lying nearby the body.  (29T 166-22 to 25)  Defendant said that [...] “rushed him” and that they “struggled,” and he “had to protect myself,” according to Cindy.  (29T 165-11 to 17; 29T 199-5 to 16)  She convinced defendant to go with her to [...]’s nearby office to tell him what had happened, and defendant had still not spoken about the gun by the time they arrived.  (29T 167-4 to 169-23)  Then after they spoke, they all went back to the house, but soon went back to [...]’s office because defendant was still so upset that he said he was “not ready” to call 911 and they agreed to talk more.  (29T 173-20 to 174-18)  There, Cindy claimed, defendant told her the gun was his and she convinced them all to tell authorities that [...] brought the gun to the scene, which is what they subsequently did.  (29T 174-20 to 176-12)  She also testified that [...] had long previously picked up his laptop from the house sometime after he moved out in 2017 because “[h]e wouldn’t go anywhere without it. ”  (31T 53-14 to 21)  No one in the Keogh family was holding the laptop “hostage. ”  (31T 53-14 to 17)  [...] testified that, in late 2016, while defendant was recovering from surgery, but [...] was still living at their house, he saw [...] and defendant have “one actual physical fight” which [...] started, and which involved [...] tackling and punching defendant before [...] could break them apart.  (31T 104-3 to 106-18)  When [...] moved out after being ‘found’ in a psychiatric hospital in early 2017, [...] picked him up, brought him to the [...]’ house to get all his things, and took “as much as they could” to [...]’ new residence.  (31T 112-4 to 114-6)  [...] called any notion that the family was holding [...]’ laptop “hostage” as “absurd. ”  (31T 114-7 to 19)  [...] testified that he did not see [...] again until June or July 2018 when someone drove [...] to their house and he began “pounding on the door. ”  (31T 115-15 to 117-3)  Defendant insisted that they not answer, [...] testified, and [...] eventually left.  (31T 117-8 to 13)  [...] also testified about the October 2018 incident, and said [...] was pounding on the door again, said, “We’re going to finish this right now,” and intimated that he had a gun, whereupon [...] told him he was no longer welcome there and [...] “walked away,” but said, “This isn’t over. ”  (31T 119-10 to 120-13)  [...] testified similarly to Cindy about the events of January 9, so that testimony is not recounted in full here.  (31T 122-15 to 134-5)  LEGAL ARGUMENT POINT I THE JUDGE COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN HE DENIED THE DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR A JURY INSTRUCTION ON THE LESSER-INCLUDED HOMICIDE OFFENSE OF PASSION/PROVOCATION MANSLAUGHTER.