People v. Ingram 

(Per supervisory order, reconsideration of prior opinion of 5/17/10.) Court's inquiry whether jurors understood that Defendant did not have to prove anything was sufficient to satisfy Rule 431 requirement for inquiry that Defendant did not have to produce any evidence. Court's imparting of humor during voir dire, that half of their juror pay would be taken away if they changed the answer on their juror questionnaire, was in jest and did not intimidate jurors from answering inquiries truthfully. Court properly refused to give second-degree murder provocation instruction, as Defendant's conduct, in stabbing and striking victim with shovel and piece of wood, while others hit him with baseball bat, indicated she was not in "mutual combat" and had entered victim's apartment with intent to confront him about his plan to evict her, thus not in sudden and intense passion as a result of provocation. (GARCIA and HALL, specially concurring.)