Does the Attorney General have any grounds to object to instructions that allow the jury to use permissive inference?

Defendant does not contend that the prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence of the underlying events to warrant these instructions. He does contend that the instructions concerning the jury's use of these permissive inferences violated his right to due process, specifically, that they allowed the jury to treat misleading statements or an attempt to suppress evidence not just as indicative consciousness of guilt, but as actual substantive evidence of guilt. Contrary to the Attorney General's position, defendant's failure to object to these instructions in the trial court does not preclude our consideration of the merits of his contention. ( 1259; People v. Taylor (2010) 48 Cal.4th 574, 630, fn. 13.)