Does the court properly instruct the jury on selfdefense and imperfect self-defense claims?

Further, the court properly instructed the jury on defendant's self-defense and imperfect self-defense claims. Once the jury rejected defendant's claims of self-defense and imperfect self-defense, no independent evidence supported a further claim that he shot in the heat of passion, and no direct testimonial evidence from defendant supported an inference that he subjectively harbored such strong passion, or acted rashly or impulsively while under its influence, for reasons unrelated to his perceived need for self-defense: "Moreover, the jury having rejected the factual basis for the claims of reasonable and unreasonable self-defense, it is not reasonably probable the jury would have found the requisite objective component of a heat of passion defense (legally sufficient provocation) even had it been instructed on that theory of voluntary manslaughter." (People v. Moye, supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 557.)