Can a jury at a sexual assault trial determine that the victim must have touched herself at defendant's instigation during the lingerie incident?

^4. Even if jurors might reasonably have inferred that the victim must have touched herself at defendant's instigation during the lingerie incident, they were not instructed on a constructive touching theory of guilt. (People v. Lopez (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 1220, 1233 ["section 288 is violated by 'any touching' of an underage child, including a constructive touching by the victim at the defendant's direction, 'accomplished with the intent of arousing the sexual desires of either the perpetrator or the child' "].)

^5. In his opening brief, defendant confined his discovery violation argument to the alleged Winter Break rape. In reply, he attempts to extend it to the alleged June 2007 rape. We consider the argument forfeited as it relates to the alleged June 2007 rape. (Varjabedian v. City of Madera (1977) 20 Cal.3d 285, 295, fn. 11 [refusing to consider "issue raised initially in the reply brief of an appellant"].)