How have the courts interpreted voluntary manslaughter instructions in the context of heat of passion?

As below, defendant urges the trial court's voluntary manslaughter instructions were defective because they did not include the heat of passion theory despite support for that theory in the evidence. The omission, defendant suggests, deprived him of his "constitutional right to have the jury determine every material issue presented by the evidence." (People v. Modesto (1963) 59 Cal.2d 722, 730, 31 Cal.Rptr. 225, 382 P.2d 33 (Modesto ); see [960 P.2d 1100] also People v. Wickersham (1982) 32 Cal.3d 307, 335, 185 Cal.Rptr. 436, 650 P.2d 311 (Wickersham ).)