What is the test for an instruction in a criminal case in which a defendant's contention on appeal is that guilt is not a logical, reasonable inference from the mere fact of his fleeing from the scene of a crime?

Defendant's contention on appeal is that "guilt is not a logical, reasonable inference from the mere fact of the defendant having fled from the scene of a crime," so the instruction violates his due process rights. The People argue defendant forfeited this argument by not raising it in the trial court. We disagree. The asserted instructional error is reviewable on appeal to the extent it affects defendant's "substantial rights," even though no objection to the instruction was made at trial. ( 1259; see People v. Lindberg (2008) 45 Cal.4th 1, 34, fn. 11 [argument that instruction given at trial was constitutionally infirm not forfeited for failure to raise the objection at trial].)

Page 9