What is the test for instructing a jury on the lesser included crime of attempted theft?

"'It is well settled that the trial court is obligated to instruct on necessarily included offenses . . . when the evidence raises a question as to whether all of the elements of the charged offense are present and there is evidence that would justify a conviction of such a lesser offense.'" (People v. Ledesma (2006) 39 Cal.4th 641, 715.) "The determination whether sufficient evidence supports the instruction must be made without reference to the credibility of that evidence." (People v. Marshall (1996) 13 Cal.4th 799, 847.)

Attempted theft is a lesser included offense of attempted robbery. (People v. Ledesma, supra, 39 Cal.4th at p. 715.) Thus, if the evidence raised a question whether defendant took property by force or fear, and also evidence that would justify a conviction of attempted theft, then the trial court should have instructed the jury on that lesser crime. However, we conclude there was no substantial evidence to support a conviction of attempted theft and no error in the trial court's refusal to instruct on the lesser offense.