How have courts interpreted the definition of provocation in a sexual assault case?

In People v. Nelson (2016) 1 Cal.5th 513, the court again recited this definition of provocation, and held the defendant's claim that the victim's comments aroused his passions and provoked him "fails because ' "[t]he provocation which incites the defendant to homicidal conduct in the heat of passion must be caused by the victim [citation], or be conduct reasonably believed by the defendant to have been engaged in by the victim." ' [Citation.] Moreover, even if we assumed [the victim's] comments incited [defendant], that incitement must be objectively sufficient ' "to arouse the passions of the ordinarily reasonable man." ' [Citation.]" (Id. at p. 540, italics added.)

The trial court's special instruction did not misstate the law, contradict Beltran, or mislead the jury.

3. Closing Argument