Does an individual have a right to a lesser related or lesser related crime instruction in an assault with a deadly weapon?

Divergent societal interests defeated any right to lesser related offense instruction in People v. Boyd (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 36, 212 Cal.Rptr. 873. "Attempted possession of cocaine is not closely related to the charge of armed robbery. The societal interest in proscribing robbery--security of personal property from a felonious taking--has no relationship to the societal interest in proscribing the possession of narcotics--elimination of a dangerous substance the use of which represents a serious risk to the health and welfare of the appellant and perhaps others who might come into unlawful possession thereof. [p] Likewise, the societal interest to be protected by proscribing an assault with a deadly weapon (Pen.Code, 245) or exhibiting a firearm (Pen.Code, 417) is security of the person, not security of personal property from a felonious taking, which underlies robbery. These crimes are not closely related." (Id., at p. 47, 212 Cal.Rptr. 873.)

Here, too, the societal interests protected by the lesser related and charged offenses are disparate. Petty theft by false pretenses protects against the fraudulent deprivation of property. Section 11355, which in essence proscribes, first, the making of "a 'deal' to supply a controlled substance, and, second, some activity with respect to 'any other liquid, substance, or material' in apparent consummation" (People v. Ernst (1975) 48 Cal.App.3d 785, 790, 121 Cal.Rptr. 857), may superficially appear aimed at

Page 128