The passion felt by the person committing the act should be superinduced by some insult, provocation, or injury, which would naturally and instantly produce, in the minds of ordinarily constituted men, the highest degree of exasperation.Booze v. State, 942 So.2d 272, 274 (¶ 9) (Miss.Ct.App. 2006) (quoting McClendon v. State, 748 So.2d 814, 817 (¶ 13) (Miss.Ct.App. 1999)). Williams's attempted suicide after he killed Calvin and Latanya does not tend to make it more probable that he acted in the heat of passion at the time he killed them. While Williams's attempted suicide can arguably be viewed as evidence that he regretted his actions, under the circumstances, it does not tend to make it more probable that he acted in the heat of passion when he killed Calvin and Latanya. Williams could have had the same regret after acting in a completely deliberative and lucid state of mind.

Further, this Court held in Peterson v. State , 740 So. 2d 940, 950-51 (¶35) (Miss. Ct. App. 1999) :SeeWansley v. State , 734 So. 2d 193, 198 (¶20) (Miss. Ct. App. 1999) ; Trigg v. State , 759 So. 2d 448, 451 (¶8) (Miss. Ct. App. 2000) ; Booze v. State , 942 So. 2d 272, 275 (¶15) (Miss. Ct. App. 2006) ; Booze v. State , 942 So. 2d 272, 275 (¶15) (Miss. 2006) ; Giles v. State , 650 So. 2d 846, 854 (Miss.1995) ; McGregory v. State , 979 So. 2d 12, 18 (¶12) (Miss. Ct. App. 2008) ; Westbrook v. State , 29 So. 3d 828 (¶12) (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) ; Ronk v. State , 172 So. 3d 1112 (¶68) (Miss. 2015). Because Peterson requested neither a manslaughter nor a self-defense instruction, he cannot now complain on appeal for the first time that he was entitled to have the jury instructed on either of these two matters. SeeGriffin v. State , 480 So. 2d 1124, 1127 (Miss.1985) (holding that where "appellants never submitted a circumstantial evidence instruction to the court for its consideration," the trial court "cannot be put in error for refusal to instruct the jury where no written request was submitted") (citing Newell v. State , 308 So. 2d 71, 78 (Miss.1975) ).

¶ 14. Powell acknowledges that he made no contemporaneous objection; this issue is therefore procedurally barred on appeal. Booze v. State, 942 So.2d 272, 275 (¶ 15) (Miss.Ct.App. 2006). The argument is also without merit.

If you find that the State has failed to prove any one or more of these essential elements of the crime of Statutory Rape, beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find the defendant not guilty. ¶ 13. Powell acknowledges that he made no contemporaneous objection; this issue is therefore procedurally barred on appeal. Booze v. State, 942 So. 2d 272, 275 (¶ 15) (Miss. Ct. App. 2006). The argument is also without merit.

No such instruction was requested by Staten. The trial court has no duty to suggest jury instructions or to instruct the jury sua sponte, and no reversible error will be predicated on the trial court's failure to give an instruction that was not requested. Booze v. State, 942 So.2d 272, 275 (¶ 15) (Miss. 2006). This issue is without merit.