Does a failure to instruct the jury sua sponte on trespass violate a defendant's right to present a defense?

federal due process rights.⁵ We disagree. "[A] claim that a court violated a [defendant]'s due process rights by omitting an instruction requires a showing that the error 'so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction violated due process.' [Citation.]" (Menendez v. Terhune (9th Cir. 2005) 422 F.3d 1012, 1029.) Here, defendant's theory of the casethat he entered the church for reasons other than to commit theftwas presented to the jury both through defendant's statement to the pastor and defense counsel's closing argument. Further, the jury was instructed not to convict defendant if it found the prosecution had not proved defendant entered with the intent to commit theft beyond a reasonable doubt, and the jury demonstrated its willingness not to convict by rendering no verdict on the robbery count. Therefore, we conclude the trial court's failure to instruct the jury sua sponte on trespass did not deprive defendant of his right to present a defense, did not render the trial unfair, and did not violate defendant's federal due process rights.

The judgment is affirmed.