Does the Attorney General have any authority to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of attempted criminal threats?

Appellant contends the trial court should have sua sponte instructed the jury on the lesser-included offense of attempted criminal threats. He argues that "the evidence supported a conviction of attempted criminal threats as [Jerry] did not initially fear appellant." The Attorney General asserts that the court was not required to instruct the jury on attempted criminal threats, and even if such an instruction was required, any error was harmless. "On appeal, we review independently the question whether the trial court improperly failed to instruct on a lesser included offense." (People v. Souza (2012) 54 Cal.4th 90, 113.)

A court is required to give "instructions on lesser included offenses when the evidence raises a question as to whether all of the elements of the charged offense were present [citation], but not when there is no evidence that the offense was less than that charged." (People v. Breverman (1998) 19 Cal.4th 142, 154.) "'[I]t has long been settled that the trial court need not, even if requested, instruct the jury on the existence and definition of a lesser and included offense if the evidence was such that the defendant, if guilty at all, was guilty of the greater offense.'" (People v. Greenberger (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 298, 372.)