Is there an undue "chilling effect" on the procedural rights of criminal defendants when the jury instructs a criminal defendant to testify before the jury that he will be cross-examined?

Even assuming an undue chilling effect on the procedural rights of criminal defendants generally may properly be raised as a basis for challenging a jury instruction (see People v. Beyah (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1241, 12481250, 88 Cal.Rptr.3d 829 ), we think it unlikely that CALCRIM No. 361 would have that effect beyond the ever-present prospect of facing cross examination. It certainly did not have that effect here. The jury instructions in this case were settled before defendant took the stand. Thus, defendant testified at length despite the knowledge in advance that he would face this instruction, and his counsel acquiesced.