How to weigh conflicting witness testimony?

Defendant argues the court violated its sua sponte duty to instruct the jury with CALCRIM No. 302 on how to weigh conflicting witness testimony. The Attorney General agrees, as do we, the instruction should have been given in light of the conflicting testimony. (See People v. Cleveland (2004) 32 Cal.4th 704, 751.) But failure to give the instruction is prejudicial only where there is a "'reasonable likelihood'" the error caused juror misunderstanding. (People v. Snead (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1088, 1097, disapproved on another ground in People v. Letner (July 29, 2010, S015384)_ Cal.4th._[2010 WL 2976678, * 50].) To make that determination, we consider the entire record and the totality of the instructions that were actually given. (Ibid.)

Page 6