Is DNA evidence sufficient to invalidate a burglary conviction?

We disagree. "Upon request, a trial court must give jury instructions 'that "pinpoint . . . the theory of the defense," ' but it can refuse instructions that highlight ' "specific evidence as such." ' [Citations.] Because the latter type of instruction 'invite[s] the jury to draw inferences favorable to one of the parties from specified items of evidence,' it is considered 'argumentative' and therefore should not be given." (People v. Earp (1999) 20 Cal.4th 826, 886.)

Here, any suggested instruction targeting the sufficiency of the DNA evidence would be exclusively and argumentatively devoted to highlighting specific evidence. Accordingly, it would have been futile for defendant's trial counsel to attempt to seek such an instruction. (See People v. Hughes (2002) 27 Cal.4th 287, 361.) Furthermore, defendant does not cite to any viable authority holding that DNA alone cannot support a burglary conviction.