What is the effect of CALCRIM 522 on the distinction between first degree and second degree murder?

We conclude that CALCRIM No. 522 was adequate, when considered in context with all of the relevant jury instructions. (See Fitzpatrick, supra, 2 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1294-1295 [in reviewing challenge to jury instructions, court must consider instructions as a whole].) First, the jury was instructed that the distinction between first degree and second degree murder rested on whether "the People have proved that he acted willfully, deliberately, and with premeditation." (CALCRIM No. 521.) The court also instructed the jury that "[a] decision to kill made rashly, impulsively, or without careful consideration is not deliberate and premeditated." (Ibid.) Importantly, the jury was instructed that it could consider provocation in determining whether the crime was second degree murder. (CALCRIM No. 522.) When the instructions are considered as a whole, the jury was adequately instructed that provocation may reduce first degree murder to second degree murder.⁴ As People v. Hernandez, supra, 183 Cal.App.4th at page 1334 explains: "Although CALCRIM No. 522 does not expressly state provocation is relevant to the issues of premeditation and deliberation, when the instructions are read as a whole there is no reasonable likelihood the jury did not understand this concept."