What is the duty of a jury to consider circumstantial evidence in a sexual assault case?

It is axiomatic that a trial court must instruct the jury on the general principles of law relevant to the issues raised by the evidence. (People v. Breverman (1998) 19 Cal.4th 142, 154.) This includes the duty to instruct on how to evaluate circumstantial evidence if the prosecution relies substantially on such evidence to prove any element of the case. (See People v. Yrigoyen (1955) 45 Cal.2d 46, 49). CALCRIM No. 223, which also was given in the instant case, defines direct and circumstantial evidence and explains that "[b]oth direct and circumstantial evidence are acceptable types of evidence to prove or disprove the elements of a charge, including intent and mental state and acts necessary to a conviction, and neither is necessarily more reliable than the other."