If provocation is inadequate to support a heat of passion theory, can provocation reduce premeditated murder to second degree?

Even if provocation is inadequate to support a heat of passion theory, evidence of provocation's effect on the defendant's state of mind may raise reasonable doubt about premeditation or deliberation. (See People v. Rivera (2019) 7 Cal.5th 306, 328.) "But an instruction that provocation may be sufficient to raise reasonable doubt about premeditation or deliberation . . . is a pinpoint instruction to which a defendant is entitled only upon request where evidence supports the theory. [Citation.] The trial court is not required to give such an instruction sua sponte." (Ibid.)

The trial court did not err in omitting instructions on heat of passion and provocation. Appellant did not request a pinpoint instruction on provocation, and the court was not required to deliver one sua sponte. (See People v. Rivera, supra, 7 Cal.5th at 329 [trial court did not err by failing to instruct jury that provocation can reduce premeditated murder to second degree murder, where defendant did not request such instruction].) Though appellant did request a heat of passion instruction, the court properly denied the request because, as explained below, there was no evidence on which the jury reasonably could have relied to find that the victims engaged in provocative conduct sufficient to place

Page 46

an average person in a state of emotion precluding judgment.¹¹