Is there any evidence defense counsel's acquiescence to the court's procedure was tactical purpose?

Respondent argues defense counsel's acquiescence to the court's procedure was for the tactical purpose of deliberately narrowing the jury's choice of verdicts. Nothing in the record affirmatively supports the argument. The mere existence of a possible tactical purpose for acquiescing to omission of a lesser included instruction does not suffice. If this were the test, "then invited error would be found wherever the accused had a tactical reason not to seek a necessarily included instruction. Since there is always a tactical reason not to want a necessarily included offense as an alternativenamely, to force the jury to an all-or-nothing choiceall situations would fit under that rule." ( People v. Wickersham, supra, 32 Cal.3d at p. 334, 185 Cal.Rptr. 436, 650 P.2d 311.)

D. Conclusion