In People v. Daya (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 697, the accused "tenaciously pursued his all-or-nothing strategy" by objecting "to any instructions on the lesser included offenses of first-degree murder" even though the "right to pursue such a strategy was discredited years ago." ( Id. at p. 712.) On that record, the appellate court found no sua sponte duty to instruct "on the niceties of the law concerning motive," on "coupling principles of motive and opportunity," or on solicitation with insufficient evidence of solicitation in the record. ( Id. at p. 714.) "In sum," the opinion held, "defendant is not entitled to remain mute at trial and scream foul on appeal for the court's failure to expand, modify, and refine standardized jury instructions." (Ibid.)