With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". encounter hearing numerous gunshots raised the possibility of mutual gunfire. But there was no evidence that the YC members had guns or shot at Appellant, and the only shell casings at the scene were found where Appellant was seen firing his gun. Some evidence did suggest that YC members may have threatened Appellant with a gun and a taser during their first encounter on the night before the killings. It was not plain error, however, for the trial court to determine, as a matter of law, that the one-day interval between that possible provocation and the killings was “sufficient for the voice of reason and humanity to be heard” by Appellant, so that “the killing[s] shall be attributed to deliberate revenge and be punished as murder.” OCGA § 16-5-2 (a). See, e.g., Merritt, 292 Ga. at 331 (<HOLDING>); Howard v. State, 288 Ga. 741, 746 (707 SE2d

A: holding that one cannot conspire to commit voluntary manslaughter which is a killing in the heat of passion
B: holding jury instruction on lesser included offense of attempted voluntary manslaughter by act which required finding of intent to kill constituted fundamental error and required reversal of defendants conviction for seconddegree murder
C: holding that no voluntary manslaughter instruction was required where a few hours passed between the allegedly provoking argument and the killing
D: holding that trial court should instruct the jury that if they had any reasonable doubt as to whether unlawful killing was murder or manslaughter it was jurys duty to convict defendant of the lesser offense manslaughter
C.