What is the legal test for giving a jury instructions on a lesser included crime?

" 'The trial court is obligated to instruct the jury on all general principles of law relevant to the issues raised by the evidence, whether or not the defendant makes a formal request.' [Citations.] 'That obligation encompasses instructions on lesser included offenses if there is evidence that, if accepted by the trier of fact, would absolve the defendant of guilt of the greater offense but not of the lesser.' [Citations.] 'To justify a lesser included offense instruction, the evidence supporting the instruction must be substantialthat is, it must be evidence from which a jury composed of reasonable persons could conclude that the facts underlying the particular instruction exist.' [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.] This substantial evidence requirement is not satisfied by " 'any evidence . . . no matter how weak,' " but rather by evidence from which a jury composed of reasonable persons could conclude "that the lesser offense, but not the greater, was committed." [Citation.] "On appeal, we review independently the question whether the trial court

Page 29

failed to instruct on a lesser included offense." [Citation.]' [Citation.]" (People v. Souza (2012) 54 Cal.4th 90, 115-116.)

It has been said that "[w]here [as here] a defendant 'denies any complicity in the crime charged, and thus lays no foundation for any verdict intermediate between "not guilty" and "guilty as charged" . . . [] . . . it is error to so instruct [on the lesser offense] because to do so would violate the fundamental rule that instructions must be pertinent to the evidence in the case at bar.' [Citation.]" (People v. Trimble (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 1255, 1260.) Due to the fact that jurors "are not required to make a binary choice between the prosecution evidence and the defense evidence," however, "if the evidence as a whole would support a third scenario, the trial court may be required to give instructions on that scenario. [Citation.]" (People v. Hernandez (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 582, 589-590; see People v. Sinclair (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1012, 1016-1017 [examining whether defendant was entitled to instructions on voluntary manslaughter based on circumstantial evidence, even though defendant denied shooting victim or even being armed].)

Malice is presumptively absent, and the crime constitutes voluntary manslaughter, when a defendant, "kills 'upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion' [citation], provided that provocation is sufficient to cause an ordinarily reasonable person to act rashly and without deliberation, and from passion rather than judgment. [Citation.]" (People v. Koontz (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1041, 1086.)