Can a jury reduce a killing that would otherwise be murder to voluntary manslaughter?

Defendant requested that the trial court instruct the jury with CALCRIM No. 571, which provides in part, "A killing that would otherwise be murder is reduced to voluntary manslaughter if the defendant killed a person because (he/she) acted in (imperfect self-defense/ [or] imperfect defense of another). [] If you conclude the defendant acted in complete (self-defense/ [or] defense of another), (his/her) action was lawful and you must find (him/her) not guilty of any crime. The difference between complete (self-defense/ [or] defense of another) and (imperfect self-defense/ [or] imperfect defense of another) depends on whether the defendant's belief in the need to use deadly force was reasonable. [] The defendant acted in (imperfect self-defense/ [or] imperfect defense of another) if: [] 1. The defendant actually believed that (he/she/ [or] someone else/ __________ < insert name of third party >) was in imminent danger of being killed or suffering great bodily injury; [] AND [] 2. The defendant actually believed that the immediate use of deadly force was necessary to defend against the danger; [] BUT [] 3. At least one of those beliefs was unreasonable. [] . . . [] In evaluating the defendant's beliefs, consider all the circumstances as they were known and appeared to the defendant." "'Under the doctrine of imperfect self-defense . . . the defendant is deemed to have acted without malice and thus can be convicted of no crime

Page 14

greater than voluntary manslaughter.' [Citation.]" (People v. Randle, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 995.)