Is there any federal constitutional error or error in instructing a jury to convict a defendant of possession of a controlled substance for sale?

This federal constitutional claim fails because the jury was instructed that it must find the prosecution proved all the elements of the charges, including the actual knowledge requirement, beyond a reasonable doubt. Alchian errs in having us focus entirely on the modified version of CALCRIM No. 3406. In reviewing claims of instructional error, "instructions are not considered in isolation. Whether instructions are correct and adequate is determined by consideration of the entire charge to the jury." (People v. Holt (1997) 15 Cal.4th 619, 677; People v. Musselwhite (1998) 17 Cal.4th 1216, 1248.) The trial court accurately instructed the jury that possession of a controlled substance for sale and conspiracy were specific intent crimes, that the prosecution was required to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the prosecution had the burden of proving Alchian "knew of the substance's nature as a controlled substance." Moreover, even in connection with the challenged mistake-of-fact instruction, the court emphasized that the prosecution was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Alchian had the requisite "specific intent or mental state," which included the knowledge element.