Does a trial court have a sua sponte obligation to instruct the jury on the need for corroboration to support the testimony of an accomplice?

Love claims that the trial court had a sua sponte obligation to instruct the jury on the need for corroboration to support the testimony of an accomplice and on the mistake of law defense. Even without a defense request, a trial court must instruct on accomplice testimony if the evidence supports giving those instructions. (People v. Tobias (2001) 25 Cal.4th 327, 331.) We assume, without deciding, that a similar obligation applies to a mistake of law defense. (But see People v. Lawson (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 108, 111 ["the trial court did not have a duty to instruct on the [mistake of fact] defense sua sponte, or on any other defense that served only to negate the intent element of the charged crime"].)

1. Failure To Instruct on Accomplice Testimony