What is the effect of using the word "withheld" in an instruction at a jury trial?

We agree with the trial court's refusal to give appellant's proposed instruction. It cannot be said as a matter of fact or law that the gardener was [209 Cal.App.3d 1234] a "material witness." Moreover, the use of the word "withheld" would have been misleading to the jury. In the context of the proposed instruction, the word "withheld" gives a false connotation of an affirmative act on the part of the officer to deprive the appellant of information. A trial court should not give instructions which are argumentative or which call upon the jury to accept specific evidence concerning which there is a factual dispute. If a judge does comment on the evidence, " 'such comment should, in the interests of justice, not be limited within an area selected by the defendant, nor given in the language of his [or her] choosing.' [Citation.]" (People v. Watson (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 376, 386-387, 152 Cal.Rptr. 471.)