Whether the trial court prejudicially erred in failing to instruct on the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter

QueSTIONS) PRESENTED . + on Tue IesseR éncluded eben Cail eee By Failing se inst (vl : OF S$ C voluntary) mAnsiAvgHteR eee auarre|/Hent of P92 pywetner He 7/4 aut Failed To Rope instkuct an Me easerl cement oF rmpuce Aboke movgt AS pewuiked BY poop le-V5 RIe25 (2229) 53 cAl. YM 452; and Heke. BY pResudicialll/ yionted Deferdants kegAt suk) 7H Mind Ave ED? F yes , 5) wreteR THe SRY mstuction 9 see derense rnd fmpertet self pefense vaurtAe) smancinusHe wR Prewdicial Reb gees jncrPlere ry pasiendng 7aeRe By vielAting 2 pendants Dye FRecess Wau) Bigtts 4) 1) le Tia] cout PRETudicialy ere SHRIGING Fi THE pemnciFles of jaw goveRning Toobin i. no ace r ay a evidence THERE BY viel Atig dererdats Jue process Riguts 0. 5) dD beret Te counsel Rendek IneFFecHue EsisHarile oF cut (6) Piling 7o ensvke wat He Teal CUR PRP eR on speucted Wye Jk wv Sel defense And VelvntARY piAAsIPUI HER 5 well 15 7He PRMCIFT ES oF In govekning 4 KA faRty’s concerment oF psteveyon of Cvidence y zelal counsel fendered § gy wetter perendants 7 sel fen fnereecHve Ne counsel] BY Frill 7? abet Fo undef PRE sedhtiaf evidence op aerendan?s JPng members? nad mat He HAA conmitted AnomleR petony crime . L FORS DEPRI je HIS consttehena| RIG Jo 9 FAIR TR/A/ 0 DEPEIE Defender “ ; ;