What is the sua sponte duty of a trial court to instruct a jury about voluntary manslaughter?

The sua sponte duty to instruct concerning lesser and necessarily included offenses exists under the following circumstances: "In past cases, we have held that the trial court has a sua sponte obligation to give instructions on necessarily included offenses when the evidence raises a question as to whether all of the elements of the charged offense were present and there is evidence that would justify a conviction of such a lesser offense [citations] 'but not when there is no evidence that the offense was less than charged.' [Citations.]" (People v. Bunyard (1988) 45 Cal.3d 1189, 1232-1233, 249 Cal.Rptr. 71, 756 P.2d 795; People v. Wickersham (1982) 32 Cal.3d 307, 323-324, 185 Cal.Rptr. 436, 650 P.2d 311.) Defendant first argues that voluntary manslaughter instructions should have been given on a theory that the killing occurred in the heat of passion. The test as delineated by Chief Justice Bird for the heat of passion sufficient to reduce the offense of murder to voluntary manslaughter is as follows: " ' "The jury is ... to be admonished and advised by the court that this heat of passion must be such a passion that as would naturally be aroused in the mind of an ordinarily reasonable person under the given facts and circumstances, and that, consequently, no defendant may set up his own standard of conduct and justify or excuse himself because in fact his passions were aroused, unless further the jury believe

Page 861