What is the test for provocation in a case of voluntary manslaughter?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Ramirez, B301432 (Cal. App. 2020):
"Predictable and reasonable conduct by a victim . . . is not sufficient provocation . . . [for] voluntary manslaughter." (People v. Enraca (2012) 53 Cal.4th 735, 760.)
If there is no evidence that the killer exhibited anger, fear, or rage, then there is insufficient evidence to establish that the killer acted while under the heat of passion. (People v. Manriquez (2005) 37 Cal.4th 547, 585.)
Page 7
Appellant contends that when the evidence is viewed in a light most favorable to him (People v. Wright (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1461, 1483), it is sufficient to show that he acted in a heat of passion because he was provoked when Clementina tried to get him arrested. He claims that the trial court erred when it did not instruct the jury with CALCRIM No. 570 (the standard voluntary manslaughter: heat of passion instruction) and CALCRIM No. 522 (the standard instruction establishing that provocation can impact the degree of murder or reduce murder to manslaughter).3 We disagree.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
