How have the courts interpreted jury instructions on the topic of circumstantial evidence?

Defendant asserts that the trial court erred by instructing the jury on the topic of circumstantial evidence because the prosecution's case did not substantially rely on circumstantial evidence. It appears defendant's argument relies on the following rule: "[T]he general sufficiency of circumstantial evidence instruction... is required to be given by the court on its own motion where the case rests substantially or entirely on circumstantial evidence." (People v. Bloyd (1987) 43 Cal.3d 333, 351, fn. omitted.)

Page 19

When the parties and the trial court were discussing jury instructions, the following exchange took place: