How have the courts interpreted the provocative act doctrine in the context of a first degree murder trial?

This rule, on the other hand, is inapplicable, where the instruction states an incorrect rule of law. Such an error would not be cured by a correct instruction in some other part of the charge. (People v. Westlake (1899) 124 Cal. 452, 457, 57 P. 465.) The latter, however, is not the case here. The instructions given to the jury by the trial court, considered as a whole, stated the rule of the provocative act theory fully and clearly. The fact the trial court did not explain all elements of the doctrine at the beginning of the jury selection process does not devalue the complete written instructions delivered to the jury before they began deliberations. These instructions properly defined all relevant elements of the provocative act doctrine as established by law, which is clearly recorded in the transcripts. ²

Page 211

[45 Cal.App.4th 1076] II. EVIDENCE SUFFICIENTLY SUPPORTS THE FIRST DEGREE MURDER CONVICTION BASED ON THE PROVOCATIVE ACT THEORY