murder” because, under New Mexico law, the crime of conspiracy “requires both an intent to agree and an intent to commit the offense which is the object of the conspiracy.” Id. at 788. The court noted that depraved-mind murder, as defined at that time by statute and case law, “is an unintentional killing-resulting from highly reckless behavior,” and, citing the Model Penal Code, concluded that it could not be the object of a conspiracy. Id. The Supreme Court of Connecticut al , 853-54 (2002) (noting that Kansas does not recognize the crime of conspiracy to commit felony murder because conspiracy requires a specific intent and one cannot intentionally conspire to commit a crime which requires either negligence or no mens rea); Conley v. State, 146 Ga.App. 739, 247 S.E.2d 562, 565 (1978) (<HOLDING>). As previously noted, Section 903 of our
holding that no voluntary manslaughter instruction was required where a few hours passed between the allegedly provoking argument and the killing holding that failure of trial court to instruct jury that state must prove beyond reasonable doubt killing was not committed in heat of passion required reversal of murder conviction even though there was general charge that state was required to prove each element of offenses beyond reasonable doubt holding that failure to charge jury that state had burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant did not act in the heat of passion was harmless because the evidence did not support a charge on passionprovocation manslaughter 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 holding that one cannot conspire to commit voluntary manslaughter which is a killing in the heat of passion