What is the test for establishing that there is a presumption of a crime as an element of the crime?

If the error here involved the instructional presumption of an element of a crime, we would inquire, to quote Yates, "whether the force of the evidence presumably considered by the jury in accordance with the instructions is so overwhelming as to leave it beyond a reasonable doubt that the verdict resting on that evidence would have been the same in the absence of the presumption. " (Yates v. Evatt, supra, 500 U.S. at p. 405, 111 S.Ct. at p. 1894, italics added.) In other words, "whether that evidence was of such compelling force as to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the presumptio[n] must have made no difference in reaching the verdict obtained." (Id. at p. 407, 111 S.Ct. at p. 1895, italics added.) In still other words, whether the evidence of the presumed fact made the presumption superfluous.