Is there any case law where a properly instructed jury would have acquitted defendant of criminal threat but convicted her of making criminal threat?

We also agree with defendant that it is reasonably probable a properly instructed jury would have acquitted her of criminal threat because there was conflicting evidence on whether B.A. was in sustained fear. In the similar fact situation in Toledo, the jury acquitted the defendant of making criminal threats but found him guilty of the crime of attempted criminal threat. (Toledo, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 226.) The jury in this case should have been given the same opportunity, but the instructional error precluded it from acquitting defendant of making a criminal threat and finding her guilty of the attempt crime. A "'jury without an option to convict a defendant of a lesser included offense might be tempted to convict the defendant of an offense greater than that established by the evidence instead of rendering an acquittal.'" (People v. Brown (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 140, 155.) Notably, the relevant inquiry is not whether defendant's conviction for criminal threat is supported by substantial evidence, but instead whether there is substantial evidence that would have supported a conviction for the lesser included offense. (See id. at p. 156 ["'it does not matter that the jury chose to convict the defendant of the greater offense over acquittal or that the defendant was convicted of the greater offense on sufficient evidence'"; to hold otherwise "would undermine the very purpose of the sua sponte rule"].) Because we conclude there is, we must reverse.