Does the placement of C.C. 1190 of the Criminal Code constitute a constitutional error requiring reversal unless lack of prejudice is shown beyond a reasonable doubt?

Defendant argues this was constitutional error requiring reversal unless lack of prejudice is shown beyond a reasonable doubt, because the error somehow deprived him of a meaningful opportunity to present his partial defense that he committed many fewer acts than claimed by C. (Crane v. Kentucky (1986) 476 U.S. 683, 689-690 [90 L.Ed.2d 636, 644-645] [constitutional right to present a defense]; Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 22-23 [17 L.Ed.2d 705, 709-710] (Chapman).) Defendant argues the placement of CALCRIM No. 1190 "so obscured the playing field, as it were, that [defendant] was effectively denied this meaningful opportunity." We disagree. The placement of the instruction did not interfere with defendant's opportunity to present a defense.

Page 20