How have we dealt with the issue of permissive inference in criminal law?

rejected these precise arguments. Regarding the claim the instruction creates an unconstitutional permissive inference, we explained in People v. Gamache, supra, 48 Cal.4th 347, 106 Cal.Rptr.3d 771, 227 P.3d 342, that the instruction satisfies the due process requirement for permissive inferences, at least for theft-related offenses: the conclusion it suggests is one that reason and common sense justify in light of the proven facts before the jury. (Id. at p. 375, 106 Cal.Rptr.3d 771, 227 P.3d 342.)¹³