What is the Defendant's position on the charge of attempted voluntary manslaughter?

Defendant next contends the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury, on the court's own initiative, on the lesser included offense of attempted voluntary manslaughter. Defendant argues there was enough evidence for the jury to conclude that he acted in a heat of passion or sudden quarrel, or acted in imperfect self-defensetwo legal theories that negate the malice element required to prove murderand therefore the jury could have concluded that he committed attempted voluntary manslaughter. ( 192, subd. (a); People v. Cruz (2008) 44 Cal.4th 636, 664.) We disagree.

"[T]he existence of 'any evidence, no matter how weak' will not justify instructions on a lesser included offense, but 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." (People v. Breverman (1998) 19 Cal.4th 142, 162, citing People v. Flannel (1979) 25 Cal.3d 668, 684.)

The evidence here of heat of passion or sudden quarrel was not substantial enough to merit the jury's consideration.

Page 13