What is the test for an instruction in a personal injury case in which a defendant is required to prove that he did not have any knowledge of the stolen nature of the property?

6 Preliminarily, we reject the People's claim that Roder is barred from raising this contention under the "invited error" doctrine. (See, e.g., People v. Barraza (1979) 23 Cal.3d 675, 683-684, 153 Cal.Rptr. 459, 591 P.2d 947; People v. Graham (1969) 71 Cal.2d 303, 317-322, 78 Cal.Rptr. 217, 455 P.2d 153.) Although defendant did request an instruction which contained language similar to that given by the trial court, the instruction requested by the defense also contained an additional paragraph which would have given the defendant the benefit of a parallel, but opposite, presumption: "If, on the other hand, you find that a defendant bought property later determined to have been stolen, but made a reasonable inquiry that the person from whom such property was bought had a legal right to sell it, you shall presume that defendant did not have the knowledge of the property's stolen nature required for a conviction of 496 P.C." The trial court rejected the defendant's proposed instruction.