What is the test for a claim that the trial court erred by instructing on inapplicable laws?

A claim that the trial court erred by instructing on inapplicable laws is reviewed de novo. (People v. Berryman (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1048, 1089, overruled on other grounds in People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800, 823, fn. 1.)

"A trial court is obliged to instruct, even without a request, on the general principles of law which relate to the issues presented by the evidence." (People v. Cooksey (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 1407, 1410.) The effect of the foregoing rule is that a trial court must refrain from instructing on principles of law that are not relevant to the issues raised by the evidence. (People v. Armstead (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 784, 792.) Circumstantial evidence, "'is that which tends to establish the fact in dispute by proving another, and which, though true, does not of itself conclusively establish that fact, but which affords an inference or presumption of its existence.' [Citation.]" (People v. Goldstein (1956) 139 Cal.App.2d 146, 152.)