Does the Attorney General have the authority to instruct a jury on a voluntary manslaughter instruction based on provocation?

^2.The Attorney General also argues that the instruction was not prejudicial because the evidence of provocation was insufficient as a matter of law to support an instruction on voluntary manslaughter in any event. In People v. Manriquez (2005) 37 Cal.4th 547 the court found mere verbal provocation insufficient to meet the objective test for voluntary manslaughter. There, the record "contained no indication that defendant's actions reflected any sign of heat of passion at the time he commenced firing his handgun at the victim. There was no showing that defendant exhibited anger, fury, or rage; thus, there was no evidence that defendant 'actually, subjectively, kill[ed] under the heat of passion.' " (Id. at p. 585.) Here, by contrast, defendant told the police after the incident that Wild had followed him around the apartment poking him and yelling at him, and that defendant had "snapped" as a result of these actions. Therefore the record supported instructing the jury on voluntary manslaughter.