Is a jury's failure to give a jury instructions on second degree implied malice provocative act murder prejudiced?

Nonetheless, had defendant not invited the alleged error, he cannot show prejudice because, based on the evidence presented at trial, he would not have obtained a different result. "[T]he failure to instruct sua sponte on a lesser included offense in a noncapital case is, at most, an error of California law alone, and is thus subject only to state standards of reversibility. We further determine, in line with recent authority, that such misdirection of the jury is not subject to reversal unless an examination of the entire record establishes a reasonable probability that the error affected the outcome. [Citations.]" (People v. Breverman, supra, 19 Cal.4th 142 at p. 165.) In light of the evidence here, we conclude it is not reasonably probable defendant would have obtained a more favorable result if instructions on second degree implied malice provocative act murder had been given.

Page 13