When will the court allow the jury to consider evidence that may have been influenced by the witness's personal interest in the trial?

Dias also asserts the court erred when it declined to instruct the jurors to consider "evidence regarding possible influences on the child's testimony from outside sources." (Italics omitted.) Again, we disagree. That proposed language was argumentative to the extent it attempted to relate particular facts to the defense theory that Mother and other adults influenced the victim to fabricate her accusations. (People v. Wharton, supra, 53 Cal.3d at p. 570.) "[T]he effect of certain facts on identified theories 'is best left to argument by counsel, cross-examination of the witnesses, and expert testimony where appropriate.' " (Ibid.) The proposed language was also duplicative of CALCRIM No. 226, which instructs the jury to consider whether the witness's testimony was "influenced by a factor such as . . . a personal relationship with someone involved in the case or a personal interest in how the case is decided."