The court did not err in denying the defendant’s requested jury instruction of voluntary manslaughter in the heat of passion, where the record lacked substantial evidence of sufficient provocation or evidence that an insufficient time for the heat of passion to subside had elapsed between the claimed provocation and the killings. The defendant had endured a long history of criticism and ridicule from his grandparents, and the defense theory was that this history, coupled with the grandparents’ failure to answer the door on the day of the killings, provoked the defendant to kill. The Third District found insufficient evidence of two elements to support a voluntary manslaughter instruction here, namely the sufficiency of the provocation and the time duration between the provocation and the killings. The court noted that the evidence showed that the defendant had not had contact with the victims for two weeks prior to the killings, and that his most recent contact with the victims had been a pleasant one. Further, there was no evidence that either victim did anything on the day of the killings to provoke him. Thus defendant’s claim failed on each element.