The trial court properly refused to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter based on a heat of passion theory. There was no evidence that the victim engaged in provocative conduct. The victim had filed for dissolution of the marriage, and appellant had been stalking her, despite repeated court orders to stay away from her. The conduct in this case, which was the appearance of the victim with another man, was not such as to cause an ordinary person to act without due deliberation or reflection. Extreme jealousy and rage did not constitute sufficient provocation which would warrant a voluntary manslaughter instruction.