Under what circumstances will a court refuse to instruct a jury on a lesser included offence?

greater offense, even in the absence of a request, whenever there is substantial evidence raising a question as to whether all of the elements of the charged greater offense are present. [Citations.] [] But this does not mean that the trial court must instruct sua sponte on the panoply of all possible lesser included offenses. Rather, . . . ' "such instructions are required whenever evidence that the defendant is guilty only of the lesser offense is 'substantial enough to merit consideration' by the jury. [Citations.] 'Substantial evidence' in this context is ' "evidence from which a jury composed of reasonable [persons] could . . . conclude[ ]" ' that the lesser offense, but not the greater, was committed." ' [Citation.]" (People v. Huggins (2006) 38 Cal.4th 175, 215.) "Speculation is insufficient to require the giving of an instruction on a lesser included offense. [Citations.] In addition, a lesser included instruction need not be given when there is no evidence that the offense is less than that charged. [Citation.]" (People v. Mendoza (2000) 24 Cal.4th 130, 174.)

We review the trial court's failure to instruct on purportedly lesser included offenses under an independent or de novo standard of review. (People v. Licas (2007) 41 Cal.4th 362, 366.)