In what circumstances will a jury be instructed to interpret a word or phrase that does not have a legal meaning?

In a criminal case, "[a] trial court is obligated to instruct the jury on all general principles of law relevant to the issues raised by the evidence, whether or not the defendant makes a formal request. [Citations.]" (People v. Blair (2005) 36 Cal.4th 686, 744-745.) "In the absence of a specific request, a court is not required to instruct the jury with respect to words or phrases that are commonly understood and not used in a technical or legal sense. [Citation.]" (People v. Navarette (2003) 30 Cal.4th 458, 503.) A court does have a sua sponte duty, however, "to define terms that have a technical meaning peculiar to the law. [Citations.]" (People v. Bland (2002) 28 Cal.4th 313, 334.) "A word or phrase having a technical, legal meaning requiring clarification by the court is one that has a definition that differs from its nonlegal meaning. [Citation.] Thus, . . . terms are held to require clarification by the trial court when their statutory definition differs from the meaning that might be ascribed to the same terms in common parlance. [Citation.]" (People v. Estrada (1995) 11 Cal.4th 568, 574-575.)