Does the Attorney General's argument that the court erred in failing to instruct on voluntary manslaughter constitute a harmless error?

^6. In connection with defendant's argument that the court erred in failing to instruct on voluntary manslaughter, the Attorney General argues that any error was necessarily harmless because the jury found that defendant premeditated the murder. (See People v. Peau (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 823, 830-832 [when the jury is properly instructed on premeditation, a finding of premeditation would be inconsistent with heat of passion].) Defendant's argument regarding the premeditation instruction is, in effect, a preemptive strike against the Attorney General's argument. The premeditation finding could not render the failure to instruct on voluntary manslaughter harmless if the premeditation instruction was itself erroneous. Our conclusion that the premeditation instruction was appropriate is an additional reason to reject defendant's argument on the court's failure to instruct on voluntary manslaughter.