In a sexual assault case, what is the effect of section 288 of the California Code of Civil Procedure on the meaning of the phrase "making contact with the intimate part of the victim's body"?

Defendant contends People v. Cuellar (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1067 dictates otherwise. We disagree. In Cuellar, the appellate court observed that the phrase at issue here was "possibly confusing" and recommended a revision to convey "that the touching need not be made to an intimate part of the victim's body, so long as it is done with the required intent." (Id. at pp. 1071-1072.) Nevertheless, the court concluded the phrase did not mislead the jury when taken with the section 288 instruction as a whole. (People v. Cuellar, supra, at p. 1072.)