The defendant attempted to kill someone because of a sudden quarrel or in the heat of passion if:

1.              The defendant took at least one direct but ineffective step toward killing a person;

2.              The defendant intended to kill that person;

3.              The defendant attempted the killing because (he/she) was provoked;

4.              The provocation would have caused a person of average disposition to act rashly and without due deliberation, that is, from passion rather than from judgment;

AND

5.              The attempted killing was a rash act done under the influence of intense emotion that obscured the defendant’s reasoning or judgment.

Heat of passion does not require anger, rage, or any specific emotion. It can be any violent or intense emotion that causes a person to act without due deliberation and reflection.

In order for heat of passion to reduce an attempted murder to attempted voluntary manslaughter, the defendant must have acted under the direct and immediate influence of provocation as I have defined it. While no specific type of provocation is required, slight or remote provocation is not sufficient. Sufficient provocation may occur over a short or long period of time.

It is not enough that the defendant simply was provoked. The defendant is not allowed to set up (his/her) own standard of conduct. You must decide whether the defendant was provoked and whether the provocation was sufficient. In deciding whether