What is the legal test for a claim-of-right defense?

In general, a trial court has a sua sponte duty to instruct on a defense "'only if it appears that the defendant is relying on such a defense, or if there is substantial evidence supportive of such a defense and the defense is not inconsistent with the defendant's theory of the case.' [Citation.]" (People v. Breverman (1998) 19 Cal.4th 142, 157.) With respect to a claim-of-right defense, the trial court is not required to instruct on the defense "'unless there is evidence to support an inference that appellant acted with a subjective belief he or she had a lawful claim on the property.' [Citation.]" (People v. Barnett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1044, 1145, italics omitted.) Although a trial court need not instruct on the defense where the supporting evidence is "minimal and insubstantial," doubts as to the sufficiency of the evidence should be resolved in the accused's favor. (Ibid.) Whether or not the evidence provides the necessary support for drawing that particular inference is a question of law (ibid.), which we review independently.