Can a jury be instructed on the defense of mistake of fact and claim of right?

the jury's duty to acquit if the evidence produces a reasonable doubt, such 'pinpoint' instructions are not required to be given sua sponte and must be given only upon request." ' [Citation.]" (People v. Anderson (2011) 51 Cal.4th 989, 996-997, italics added.)

In Covarrubias, supra, 1 Cal.5th 838, the defendant argued the trial court should have instructed the jury sua sponte on the claim-of-right defense to a robbery charge because there was evidence that the defendant thought he was helping his cousin regain his own property from the victims' residence. (Id. at pp. 849, 872.) Our high court rejected this argument, explaining, "because the asserted claim of right served only to negate the intent to steal element of the robbery charges and the trial court otherwise properly instructed the jury on this element, it was not required to instruct on the defense in the absence of a request by trial counsel." (Id. at p. 874.) In reaching it conclusion, the court expressly disapproved People v. Russell, supra, 144 Cal.App.4th at page 1431, in which the appellate court previously held, in a trial on a charge of receiving a stolen motorcycle, the trial court had a sua sponte duty to instruct on the defenses of mistake of fact and claim of right " 'if it appeared defendant was relying on the defenses, or if there was substantial evidence supportive of the defenses and they were not inconsistent with defendant's theory of the case.' " (Covarrubias at p. 874, fn. 14.)