Does the Court have a duty to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of involuntary manslaughter?

Appellant maintains that the trial court had a duty to instruct the jury sua sponte on the lesser included offense of involuntary manslaughter, which is defined as the unlawful killing of a person without malice "in the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to a felony." ( 192, subd. (b).) Involuntary manslaughter may be predicated on an unlawful act constituting a misdemeanor, such as simple assault or battery, if the "misdemeanor was dangerous to human life or safety under the circumstances of its commission." (People v. Cox (2000) 23 Cal.4th 665, 675.) Appellant asserts, "Here, there was ample evidence to support finding [he] aided and abetted or conspired to commit only misdemeanor assault and battery."

"'[I]t is the "court's duty to instruct the jury not only on the crime with which the defendant is charged, but also on any lesser offense that is both included in the offense charged and shown by the evidence to have been committed." [Citation.]' [Citations.] 'Conversely, even on request, the court "has no duty to instruct on any lesser offense unless there is substantial evidence to support such instruction." [Citation.]' [Citation.] Substantial evidence 'is not merely "any evidence . . . no matter how weak" [citation], but rather "'evidence from which a jury composed of reasonable [persons] could ... conclude[]'" that the lesser offense, but not the greater, was committed. [Citations.]' [Citation.] '"On appeal, we review independently the question whether the court failed to instruct on a lesser included offense." [Citation.]' [Citation.]" (People v. Castaneda (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1292, 1327-1328; see also

Page 12

People v. Breverman (1998) 19 Cal.4th 142, 162, italics added [instruction on lesser included offense "required whenever evidence that the defendant is guilty only of the lesser offense is 'substantial enough to merit consideration' by the jury"].)