Is there any case law where a jury was advised to consider both specific intent and circumstantial evidence?

Defendant refers us to the case of People v. Salas (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 460, 129 Cal.Rptr. 871, in which the court found prejudicial error in the giving of a circumstantial evidence instruction with respect to one specific intent determination but in not also giving the instruction with regard to another specific intent requirement. The defendant in Salas was convicted of robbery (which requires specific intent to permanently deprive) with the specific intent to inflict great bodily injury on the victim. The court concluded that giving the circumstantial evidence instruction with respect to proof of specific intent for the crime of robbery itself, without giving the same instruction with respect to the specific intent to inflict great bodily injury might have misled the jury as to the manner in which they should evaluate the circumstantial evidence of intent in the latter instance.