Does the Attorney General have any authority or authority to hold that the error in giving CALJIC No. 1 was harmless?

The Attorney General contends, however, that our decision in People v. Camden (1976) 16 Cal.3d 808, 129 Cal.Rptr. 438, 548 P.2d 1110, compels the conclusion that the error was harmless. The reliance is misplaced. In Camden the defendant was convicted of kidnaping on evidence that he lured the victim into his car with an offer of a ride, then prevented her from leaving while he attempted to take her home for sexual purposes. On appeal he contended he was denied effective assistance of counsel at trial because no objection was voiced when the court erroneously gave CALJIC No. 1.23. We rejected the contention, reasoning that "the evidence that the victim was forcibly detained during asportation is so overwhelming that the trier of fact, having rejected defendant's alibi, must be deemed to have found inter alia that the asportation was accomplished by means of force, and thus no prejudice could have resulted from a permissible inference that defendant was also guilty of a fraudulent misrepresentation." (Fn. omitted; id. at p. 816, 129 Cal.Rptr. at p. 442, 548 P.2d at p. 1114.)