Can a defendant who fails to object to a jury's consideration of a lesser charge of assault have an implied consent to a related crime?

"However, an exception to this rule has long been recognized in cases where a defendant expressly or impliedly consents to have the trier of fact consider a nonincluded offense: 'Since a defendant who requests or acquiesces in conviction of a lesser offense cannot legitimately claim lack of notice, the court has jurisdiction to convict him of that offense.' [Citations.]" (People v. Toro (1989) 47 Cal.3d 966, 973, disapproved on unrelated grounds by People v. Guiuan (1998) 18 Cal.4th 558, 568, fn. 3.)

"[C]onsent should also be found when the instructions are given by the court sua sponte and no defense objection was raised . . . ." (People v. Toro, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 974; see also id. at pp. 974-978.) "[F]ailure to object constitute[s] an implied consent to the jury's consideration of a . . . related offense and a waiver of any objection based on lack of notice." (Id. at p. 978, fn. omitted.)