Is there any error for a trial court to refuse to give a pinpoint instruction to the jury that evidence of third party culpability raises a reasonable doubt concerning defendant?

It is not error for a trial court to refuse a pinpoint instruction on a point that is adequately covered by other instructions. (People v. Hughes (2002) 27 Cal.4th 287, 362-363.) The trial court here instructed the jury that it must consider all of the evidence, and the jury must find the defendant not guilty unless the People have proved the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial court gave the jury a list of factors to consider in evaluating eyewitness testimony identifying defendant as the perpetrator. The trial court also instructed the jury on the elements of the charged offenses. The trial court told the jury it must find defendant not guilty if the People have not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant committed the charged crimes. Given these instructions, the jury could not have understood that it could convict defendant if it believed someone else was responsible for the shooting. No instructional error occurred because the instructions given adequately conveyed that evidence of third party culpability raises a reasonable doubt concerning defendant's guilt. (Hartsch, supra, 49 Cal.4th at 504.)