Does a defendant have a tactical motive for refusing to receive instructions on how to instruct a jury in a sexual assault case?

"[D]efendant did not want the instructions because they were inconsistent with his defense that he did not commit the crimes at all." (People v. Horning, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 905, citing People v. Hardy (1992) 2 Cal.4th 86, 184.) This deliberate tactical motive for encouraging the trial court to proceed with what defendant now characterizes as an erroneous failure to instruct on lesser offenses precludes defendant from asserting this error as a basis for a reversal of his conviction. (People v. Avalos, supra, 37 Cal.3d at p. 228.)

Were we to reach the merits, a different result would not obtain. While a trial court has a sua sponte duty to instruct on all theories of a lesser included offenses which find substantial support in the evidence (People v. Breverman (1998) 19 Cal.4th 142, 162), such instructions are required only when there is substantial evidence to merit consideration by the jury that the defendant is guilty of only the lesser offense. (Ibid.)