How have the courts treated DNA evidence in a sexual assault case?

Defendant next urges the officers lied about having DNA evidence and told defendant things would go worse for him if he did not explain it. Looking at the portions of the interview defendant cites, the officers made the following statements concerning DNA: "You understand how DNA works and stuff?" "What do you think the results will show[?]" "Tell me why DNA would be found on her, from you?" "If I take a swab in there, the lab can actually separate the different DNA's." "When the DNA gets sent out and that foreign DNA that was found, matches you, I mean . . . how you gonna explain that?" Quite simply, the officers only spoke hypothetically and did not say they had DNA evidence incriminating defendant. (See People v. Holloway, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 115 [" 'Questioning may include . . . outline of theories of events, confrontation with contradictory facts, even debate between police and suspect . . . .' "]; cf. People v. Smith (2007) 40 Cal.4th 483, 505 [in any event, "[p]olice deception 'does not necessarily invalidate an incriminating statement' "].)