What is the test for reducing the meaning of provocation in the context of reducing murder to second degree murder?

It was unclear whether the jury was referring to provocation in the context of reducing first degree murder to second degree murder or reducing murder to manslaughter. The trial court considered defense counsel's request and concluded that granting that request would fail to answer the question comprehensively. It then directed the jury to three specific instructions that contained the answer to their questions. We find no abuse of discretion in the court's decision to do so. (People v. Beardslee, supra, 53 Cal.3d at p. 97, italics omitted ["[The court] must at least consider how it can best aid the jury. It should decide as to each jury question whether further explanation is desirable, or whether it should merely reiterate the instructions already given"].)

Defendant's reliance on People v. Miller (1981) 120 Cal.App.3d 233 is unpersuasive. That case dealt with the trial court's refusal to clarify the meaning of "great bodily injury" when asked by the jury, and the original jury instructions did not define the term. (Id. at pp. 235-236.) In this case, the answers to the jury's questions were already given in the jury instructions.