In People v. Borchers (1958) 50 Cal.2d 321, the defendant was a 45-year-old man who killed his 29-year-old fiancee. While they were engaged, the victim admitted sexual relations with another man. A private investigator informed the defendant that the other man had a police record as a pimp, and the victim was taking money from the defendant and giving it to the other man. The victim told the defendant she wished she were dead and tried to jump from a car as they were driving. She took a gun from the glove compartment, pointed it at the defendant and then at herself, and repeatedly asked him to shoot her. (Id. at pp. 324-326.) The defendant eventually did so after the victim said, "Go ahead and shoot, what is the matter, are you chicken." (Id. at p. 326.) The defendant's common law wife admitted to having an affair with an individual who was plotting a possible murder against the defendant to obtain his life insurance benefits. ( Id. at pp. 324-325.) On one occasion the defendant's wife attempted to jump from the car he was driving, stating that "she wished she were dead . . . ." ( Id. at p. 325.) During another drive, the defendant's wife took a gun out of the glove department and asked the defendant to shoot her. ( Id. at pp. 325-326.) Once the defendant had the gun, his wife told him, "Go ahead and shoot, what is the matter, are you chicken." ( Id. at p. 326.) Based upon these facts the California Supreme Court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court's reduction in the jury's verdict from second degree murder to manslaughter: "From the evidence viewed as a whole the trial judge could well have concluded that defendant was roused to a heat of 'passion' by a series of events over a considerable period of time: his wife's admitted infidelity, her statements that she wished she were dead, her attempt to jump from the car on the trip to San Diego, her repeated urging that defendant shoot her, a child she cared for, and himself on the night of the homicide, and her taunt, 'are you chicken.'" ( Id. at pp. 328-329.)