prejudicial. See Jammal v. Van de Kamp, 926 F.2d 918, 920 (9th Cir.1991) (“Only if there are no permissible inferences the jury may draw from the evidence can its admission violate due process.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). Because this was not a capital case, no federal constitutional issue is presented by the trial court’s failure to instruct sua sponte on voluntary manslaughter as a lesser included offense. See Windham v. Merkle, 163 F.3d 1092, 1106 (9th Cir.1998). In addition, no federal constitutional error occurred when the trial court failed to give a specific instruction on provocation sua sponte because the court’s other instructions adequately defined premeditation and deliberation. Cf. Henderson v. Kibbe, 431 U.S. 145, 155-57, 97 S.Ct. 1730, 52 L.Ed.2d 203 (1977) (<HOLDING>). No Sixth Amendment speedy trial violation
holding that habeas relief was not warranted for an omitted instruction when the jurors would have responded to the omitted instruction consistently with their determination of the issues that were comprehensively explained in the remaining instructions holding appellate counsel ineffective for failing to argue the trial court committed fundamental error in giving the thenstandard jury instruction for manslaughter by act even though controlling precedent in the district had approved the instruction when the instruction had been found fundamentally erroneous in another district and conflict between the two districts would have allowed defendant to seek relief in the supreme court holding that defendant was not entitled to entrapment instruction when there was insufficient evidence to support such an instruction holding that it was not error for the court to give a substantive new instruction to the jury after deliberations began where the instruction was given in court with the defendant and his counsel present holding that when no objection was made to jury instruction evidence to support finding based on instruction should be assessed in light of the instruction given