Does a defendant have a duty to accept the only interpretation of the circumstantial evidence that "appears to be reasonable"?

Defendant argues that, by telling jurors they had the "duty" to accept the only interpretation of the circumstantial evidence that "appears" to be reasonable, these instructions were inconsistent with the prosecution's obligation to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, as required by the due process clause of the federal Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment. He further claims these instructions were unconstitutional because the word "duty" impermissibly created a mandatory, conclusive presumption of guilt. We have rejected these contentions in the past. (See, e.g., People v. Hines (1997) 15 Cal.4th 997, 1050-1051, 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 594, 938 P.2d 388.) Moreover, defendant invited any conceivable error in giving these instructions because he asked the trial court to give them. (See People v. Lucero, supra, 23 Cal.4th 692, 723, 97 Cal. Rptr.2d 871, 3 P.3d 248.)