Is there any grounds that a defendant's substantial rights have been forfeited as a result of defense counsel's failure to object to CALCRIM No. 361 at trial?

The People contend that defense counsel's failure to object to CALCRIM No. 361 at trial means defendant's challenge has been forfeited. (See People v. Rundle (2008) 43 Cal.4th 76, 151, disapproved on another ground in People v. Doolin (2009) 45 Cal.4th 390, 421, fn. 22.) However, section 1259 provides that even in the absence of an objection, we must review any instruction that affected the substantial rights of a defendant, and we cannot determine whether the instruction affected defendant's substantial rights without addressing the merits of defendant's claim. Moreover, the People have fully briefed the merits of the issue. We will therefore address the issue on the merits.