Background
Antonio Wilmot was convicted of second-degree murder after a fatal altercation. At trial, the defense sought a voluntary manslaughter instruction based on heat of passion. The trial court gave a modified version of CALCRIM No. 570 — the standard voluntary manslaughter instruction — that inserted the word “unintentionally” into the instruction. In the written instructions provided to the jury, that added word was underlined, making it the only underlined word in 34 pages of instructions.
Wilmot was convicted of second-degree murder rather than the lesser offense of voluntary manslaughter. He appealed, arguing the modified instruction misled the jury into believing that only accidental killings — not intentional killings committed in the heat of passion — could be reduced to voluntary manslaughter.
The Court’s Holding
The Second District Court of Appeal reversed. The court held that adding “unintentionally” to CALCRIM No. 570 was prejudicial error because it incorrectly suggested that an intentional killing could never qualify as voluntary manslaughter under a heat-of-passion theory.
Relying on People v. Lasko, the court explained that voluntary manslaughter encompasses both intentional killings committed in the heat of passion and reckless killings committed under the same provocation. By inserting and underlining “unintentionally,” the trial court effectively told the jury that heat of passion was only a defense to unintentional killings — directly contrary to established law. Because the case turned on whether Wilmot acted in the heat of passion, the instructional error was not harmless.
Key Takeaways
- Voluntary manslaughter under California law covers both intentional and reckless killings committed in the heat of passion — People v. Lasko remains controlling.
- Modifying CALCRIM No. 570 to add “unintentionally” is reversible error when it leads the jury to believe that only accidental killings qualify for the lesser offense.
- Underlining a single added word in 34 pages of jury instructions amplifies the risk of prejudice, because jurors may give it outsized emphasis.
- Trial courts should exercise extreme caution when modifying pattern jury instructions, particularly on elements that determine the degree of homicide.
Why It Matters
Jury instructions on the boundary between murder and voluntary manslaughter are among the most consequential in criminal trials. This opinion serves as a cautionary tale for trial courts considering modifications to CALCRIM pattern instructions: a single added word — especially one that is visually highlighted — can distort the jury’s understanding of the law and require reversal of a murder conviction.
For defense attorneys, the case reinforces the importance of scrutinizing modified instructions on the record and objecting to any language that narrows the heat-of-passion defense beyond what Lasko permits. For prosecutors, it is a reminder that overreaching on jury instructions can backfire, resulting in a new trial.