Opinion ID: 2633509
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: Refusal of Instructions on Heat-of-passion Voluntary Manslaughter

Text: Defendant requested the jury be instructed on voluntary manslaughter committed upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion prompted by sufficient provocation. (§ 192, subd. (a).) The trial court refused, reasoning that defendant's testimony did not show any provocation other than Miller's asserted attack on defendant, which warranted instructions on self-defense and voluntary manslaughter as a killing done out of an honest but unreasonable belief in the need for self-defense, but not on heat-of-passion voluntary manslaughter. The jury was therefore instructed only on imperfect self-defense voluntary manslaughter. We need not decide whether the trial court was required to instruct on heat-of-passion voluntary manslaughter, because any error in failing to do so was clearly harmless, even under the standard of Chapman v. California, supra, 386 U.S. at page 24, 87 S.Ct. 824, which defendant argues applies. (See People v. Breverman (1998) 19 Cal.4th 142, 165-166, 77 Cal. Rptr.2d 870, 960 P.2d 1094 [failure to instruct on court's own motion on lesser included offense in noncapital case is error of state law only].) The jury found true the special circumstance allegation that defendant killed Miller in the course of, and in order to advance, the commission or attempted commission of a robbery. The robbery-murder special-circumstance finding also dictated a finding of first degree felony murder under section 189 and the corresponding felony-murder instruction, which was properly given. The failure to instruct on one theory of voluntary manslaughter was therefore harmless, as the jury necessarily determined the killing was first degree murder, not manslaughter, under other properly given instructions. ( People v. Koontz (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1041, 1085-1086, 119 Cal. Rptr.2d 859, 46 P.3d 335; People v. Lewis (2001) 25 Cal.4th 610, 646, 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 629, 22 P.3d 392.)