The criminal statutes of the state define manslaughter and murder as they were defined at common law. as to insanity, the state has the following provision: "under the defense of insanity a defendant may be entitled to acquittal if, because of mental illness, the defendant was unable to control his or her actions or to conform his or her conduct to the law."the defendant was put on trial in the state for the murder of his wife and her co-worker. the evidence at trial established that the defendant's wife was having an affair with the co-worker, and that the defendant learned of it and killed the pair. the defendant did not take the stand in his own defense. in his closing statement to the jury, the defendant's attorney made a statement, "ladies and gentlemen, you must consider that there are some things that would provoke any one of us to kill, and there are things that make one unable to control one's actions." the defendant's attorney requested that the judge give the jury instructions on manslaughter and on insanity, and the judge agreed to do so. the judge also issued the following instructions: "instruction #6: in order to mitigate an intentional killing to voluntary manslaughter, the burden of proof is on the defendant to establish that adequate provocation existed.""instruction #8: insanity is an affirmative defense and the burden of proof is on the defendant to establish that such insanity existed at the time of the killing."the jury found the defendant guilty of murder, and he appealed. he asserts that the jury instructions violated his rights under the federal constitution. how should the appeals court rule? a reverse the defendant's conviction, because instruction #6 was improper. b reverse the defendant's conviction, because instruction #8 was improper. c reverse the defendant's conviction, because both instructions #6 and #8 were improper. d uphold the defendant's conviction, because neither instruction #6 nor instruction #8 was improper.