What is the effect of the Court's refusal of a defendant's request to instruct the jury not to consider specific evidence in their instructions?

We conclude the trial court acted within its discretion in refusing the requested instruction. The trial court could properly conclude the instruction, which essentially pertained to nonexistent discovery violations, was both argumentative and inapplicable. (See People v. Kraft (2000) 23 Cal.4th 978, 1063 [The trial court "acted within its discretion in refusing as argumentative the requested instructions. A defendant has the right, on request, to instructions that pinpoint the theory of the defense, not specific evidence[, or the lack of it,] as such."].)

6. Substantial evidence supports the jury's verdict.

Fletcher asserts the jury's verdict in this matter was "contrary to the evidence."