CALCRIM No. 511

The defendant is not guilty of (murder/ [or] manslaughter) if (he/she)

killed someone by accident while acting in the heat of passion. Such a

killing is excused, and therefore not unlawful, if, at the time of the

killing:

1. The defendant acted in the heat of passion;

2. The defendant was (suddenly provoked by <insert

name of decedent>/ [or] suddenly drawn into combat by

<insert name of decedent>);

3. The defendant did not take undue advantage of

<insert name of decedent>;

4. The defendant did not use a dangerous weapon;

5. The defendant did not kill <insert name of decedent>

in a cruel or unusual way;

6. The defendant did not intend to kill <insert name of

decedent> and did not act with conscious disregard of the danger

to human life;

AND

7. The defendant did not act with criminal negligence.

A person acts in the heat of passion when he or she is provoked into

doing a rash act under the influence of intense emotion that obscures his

or her reasoning or judgment. The provocation must be sufficient to have

caused a person of average disposition to act rashly and without due

deliberation, that is, from passion rather than from 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 the killing to be excused on this basis, 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. Y ou must

decide whether the defendant was provoked and whether the provocation

was sufficient. In deciding whether the provocation was sufficient,

consider whether a person of average disposition, in the same situation

and knowing the same facts, would have reacted from passion rather

than judgment.

[A dangerous weapon is any object, instrument, or weapon [that is

inherently deadly or dangerous or one] that is used in such a way that it

is capable of causing and likely to cause death or great bodily injury.]

[An object is inherently deadly if it is deadly or dangerous in the

ordinary use for which it was designed.]

[Great bodily injury means significant or substantial physical injury. It is

an injury that is greater than moderate harm.]

Criminal negligence involves more than ordinary carelessness,

inattention, or mistake in judgment. A person acts with criminal

negligence when:

1. He or she acts in a way that creates a high risk of death or great

bodily injury;

AND

2. A reasonable person would have known that acting in that way

would create such a risk.

In other words, a person acts with criminal negligence when the way he

or she acts is so different from how an ordinarily careful person would

act in the same situation that his or her act amounts to disregard for

human life or indifference to the consequences of that act.

The People have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that

the killing was not excused. If the People have not met this burden, you

must find the defendant not guilty of (murder/ [or] manslaughter).

New January 2006; Revised April 2011, September 2019, September 2020, March

2022, October 2025