What is the standard of review for a failure by a court to instruct on the meaning of provocation and heat of passion?

We apply an independent or de novo standard of review to the failure by a trial court to instruct on the meaning of provocation and heat of passion. "Whether or not to give any particular instruction in any particular case entails the resolution of a mixed question of law and fact that, we believe, is however predominantly legal. As such, it should be examined without deference." (People v. Waidla, supra, 22 Cal.4th 690, 733, 94 Cal.Rptr.2d 396, 996 P.2d 46.)

Provocation and heat of passion as material to voluntary manslaughter were simply immaterial to this case because, as previously discussed, the evidence did not support instructions on voluntary manslaughter. Provocation and heat of passion as used in the instructions here bore their common meaning, which required no further explanation in the absence of a specific request. (See People v. Cox (2003) 30 Cal.4th 916, 967, 135 Cal.Rptr.2d 272, 70 P.3d 277.)

7. Failure to Instruct on Second Degree Felony Murder Based on Unlawfully Causing a Fire