Does a failure to instruct sua sponte on unreasonable self-defense constitute an error of federal constitutional magnitude?

^12. Because the trial court was not required to instruct sua sponte on unreasonable self-defense, defendant suffered no violation of his federal constitutional rights on that point. In any case, any failure to instruct sua sponte on lesser included offenses is not an error of federal constitutional magnitude. (People v. Breverman, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 165 [holding that "the failure to instruct sua sponte on a lesser included offense in a noncapital case is, at most, an error of California law alone"].) Furthermore, in light of our conclusions in the foregoing sections of this opinion that none of defendant's claims of error, considered separately, has merit, we also reject defendant's contention that cumulative error requires reversal.

^13. Based upon the appellate court's conclusion in People v. Verlinde (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 1146, 1168, that a similar accomplice requirement set forth in section 12022.7, subdivision (a), is "an element of the enhancement," respondent agrees that the trial court may have erred in this case by omitting the "other than an accomplice" language from the jury instruction on the firearm enhancement under section 12022.53, subdivision (d).