Does a defendant have a duty to instruct sua sponte on a defense that it is not inconsistent with their own theory of self-defense?

Regarding his claim that CALCRIM No. 3471 was erroneously given because it was inconsistent with his defense that he stabbed Hernandez in reasonable self-defense, defendant relies on the settled principle that a trial court has a duty to instruct sua sponte on a defense, "'only if it appears that the defendant is relying on such a defense, or if there is substantial evidence supportive of such a defense and the defense is not inconsistent with the defendant's theory of the case.'" (People v. Breverman, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 157; People v. Gonzales (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 382, 389.)