The defendant, John Edward Adams, was originally charged with armed robbery. He was convicted by a jury of three unarmed robberies and one larceny from the person following a holdup at a cocktail lounge.1 The Court of Appeals *56reversed because the trial judge refused to give defendant’s requested instructions on attempted armed robbery and attempted unarmed robbery.2 We reverse and reinstate the convictions.

In People v Lovett, 396 Mich 101; 238 NW2d 44 (1976), the defendant was charged with armed robbery. This Court reversed the defendant’s conviction of larceny from the person because the judge had refused to instruct, as requested by the defendant’s lawyer, on the lesser included offense of attempted armed robbery. We said that attempted armed robbery is "necessarily included”.

While a completed offense may necessarily include as a factual matter3 conduct that, taken alone, would constitute an attempt to commit the offense, we are now of the opinion that because the elements of an attempt are not duplicated in the completed offense the judge is not required to instruct the jury on attempt without regard to the evidence or the defense presented or argued.

The purpose of instructions on lesser included offenses is to inform the jury of the verdicts it may return (1) for necessarily included or cognate offenses, if it finds that the prosecution has proven some, but less than all, elements of the charged offense, and (2) for cognate offenses, if there is evidence tending to establish an element of an offense having an element that is not an element of the charged offense._

*57Neither an attempt to commit an offense nor all the elements of an attempt to commit an offense are elements of the completed offense. See Part II.

A defendant’s request to instruct the jury that it may find the defendant guilty of the cognate offense of attempt to commit the charged offense or of one of the necessarily included offenses of the charged offense must therefore be granted only where there is evidence, or on jury view a lack of evidence, tending to establish the elements of the cognate offense of attempt.

I

In People v Chamblis, 395 Mich 408; 236 NW2d 473 (1975), this Court said that a defendant has a right to a jury determination on each element of the crime charged. The jury may find an element lacking notwithstanding overwhelming evidence to the contrary.4

By charging an offense, the prosecutor asserts *58that he can establish all the elements of a necessarily included offense. Only the jury can decide which elements of the charged offense or of any necessarily included offense are present or lacking. The failure to give an instruction on necessarily included offenses may deprive the defendant of his right to have the jury, not the judge or prosecutor, find the facts and determine whether the requisite elements are present.

Unless a jury instructed on a greater offense is advised of the necessarily included offenses of which it may convict if it fails to find an element of the charged offense, it may, because of incomplete instruction, enter a verdict not consistent with its finding that the element was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

If the elimination of an element of the charged offense yields a lesser offense, the jury, upon due request from defendant’s lawyer, must be instructed what verdict to return if it finds that element to be lacking.

II

Neither an attempt to commit an offense nor all its elements are elements5 of the completed offense. In instructing the jury on armed robbery, the judge identifies eight or nine6 elements, none *59of which is an attempt to commit the offense. If the elements of armed robbery were successively peeled away, singly or in various combinations, the offense of attempt to commit armed robbery, or any necessarily included offense of armed robbery, would not emerge.

Since a jury asked to determine whether the elements of armed robbery have been established need not be instructed on attempt to commit that offense or a necessarily included offense in order to know what verdict to return if it finds some but not all the elements of armed robbery, the judge need not instruct on attempt unless there is evidence, or on jury view a lack of evidence, indicating that only an attempt was committed.

Ill

We have considered whether in the instant case there was evidence that only an attempt was committed and thus an instruction was required on attempt as a cognate offense.

The defendant testified that an armed robbery was committed and that it was in progress when he joined it. He did not ask the jury, for example, to disbelieve the evidence that wallets were taken, *60asserting that there was no larceny, only attempted larceny or robbery, but asserted that he acted under duress in collecting the wallets.

In providing for instructions on cognate offenses where the evidence or lack of evidence warrants, this Court drew a distinction between necessarily included and cognate offenses so that an instruction on a cognate offense would not be required in every case. It would be inconsistent with that approach to require an instruction on the cognate offense of attempt in every case because factually the charged offense cannot be committed without committing the cognate offense of attempt, and would transform attempt, which is not, because its elements are not elements of the charged offense, into a necessarily included offense although it is not elementally a necessarily included offense. We decline to so erase the distinction between necessarily included and cognate offenses which serves to create some balance in the number of lesser-offense instructions required.7

We add that a judge has the discretion, without request,8 to instruct on attempt and is obliged to instruct on attempt when the defense is that there was only an attempt and there is evidence that the completed offense may not have been committed or the defense is that the jury should not credit evidence tending to show that it was completed.

*61People v Lovett is overruled to the extent that it is inconsistent with this decision.

Reversed and remanded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.9

(concurring in result). I agree with my brother’s opinion insofar as it holds that the trial judge did not err in refusing to instruct on attempted armed robbery and attempted unarmed robbery when the undisputed facts established a completed robbery. It has long been the law in this state that refusal to give a lesser included offense instruction supported by the facts constitutes reversible error. People v Hamilton, 76 Mich 212; 42 NW 1131 (1889). The appropriateness of lesser included offense instructions is determined by the evidence. People v Phillips, 385 Mich 30; 187 NW2d 211 (1971). A lesser included offense instruction is required only when there are disputed factual issues which would rationally support acquittal of the greater offense and conviction of the lesser offense. Sansone v United States, 380 US 343, 349-350; 85 S Ct 1004; 13 L Ed 2d 882 (1965).

We applied these well-established principles in People v Rogers, 411 Mich 202; 305 NW2d 857 (1981), when we carefully examined the record and concluded that the evidence would rationally support a conviction of attempted uttering and publishing. A similar examination of the record in this *62case reveals that no rational view of the evidence would support an attempted robbery conviction. The jury was instructed on the defendant’s theory of duress, both initially and in supplemental instructions. The jury chose to reject that defense. The failure to give instructions not supported by the evidence cannot be a basis for reversal..

I would reverse the Court of Appeals and reinstate the defendant’s convictions.