222 P.3d 855, 860 (Colo.App.2009) (citing People v. Jimenez, 217 P.3d 841, 870 (Colo.App.2008)). "To constitute an abuse of discretion, the opponent must show that the trial court's decision was manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, or unfair." People v. Webster, 987 P.2d 836, 840 (Colo.App.1998). 2, Discussion 1838 "A defendant is entitled to an instruction on a lesser-included offense if there is evidence to support giving that instruction. Such an instruction is appropriate when there is a rational basis to acqui that sixteen-year-old A.J. agreed to perform sexual acts in exchange for money promised her by defendant established the required elements of the crime, giving a lesser-included instruction. would have been improper. See People v. Price, 969 P.2d 766, 768 (Colo.App.1998) (<HOLDING>); Graham v. People, 199 Colo. 439, 441, 610
holding that when the prosecution presented evidence that the defendant stole at least 44000 defendant failed to present any evidence that the amount she stole was less than 15000 the minimum threshold required by the charged crime the jury was not provided with any rational basis to acquit her of the offense charged but conviet her of one of the lesser included offenses holding it is fundamental error to convict a defendant of crime not charged and which is not a lesser included offense of the charged crime holding that counsel was not ineffective in failing to request a charge on the lesserincluded offense when the evidence showed either the commission of the completed offense as charged or the commission of no offense such that the defendant was not entitled to a charge on the lesser offense holding that an offense is factually lesser included if the charging instrument alleges that the means used to commit the crime charged include all of the elements of the alleged lesser included offense holding due process clause requires the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt all of the elements included in the definition of the charged offense and new york law that requires the defendant in a second degree murder prosecution to prove by a preponderance of the evidence the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance in order to reduce the crime to manslaughter when no element of the charged offense is presumed does not violate the due process clause