The court did not err in instructing the jury that voluntary manslaughter requires no intent to kill. The crime at issue here occurred in 1989; appellant was not charged until 2002. He argued that the California Supreme Court’s holding in People v. Lasko (2000) 23 Cal.4th 101 did not apply retroactively, relying on the companion holding in People v. Blakely (2000) 23 Cal.4th 82, in which the court affirmatively stated that the holding did not apply retroactively. This court distinguished the two cases, noting that the Blakely opinion resulted in an unforeseen expansion of the crime of voluntary manslaughter to include situations in which the defendant acts with a conscious disregard for life and under an unreasonable belief in the need for self-defense. The Lasko opinion, by contrast, had not enlarged the crime of voluntary manslaughter in the context of a sudden quarrel or heat of passion, but had merely clarified existing law. The court likewise rejected the defendant’s arguments regarding the court’s failure to instruct on involuntary manslaughter and the absence of an intent to kill.