What is the attorney general's position on consent in the second paragraph of the California Sexual Offences Act?

Appellant argues the second paragraph on consent was ambiguous and shifted the burden to him to prove consent when the prosecution bore the burden to prove lack of consent as an element of the crime. (See People v. Clifton (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 195, 199 ["The language of the statute places the burden on the People to show by direct or circumstantial evidence the defendant lacked the consent of the owner. [Citation.]") The attorney general argues appellant forfeited this challenge by not objecting in the trial court. Alternatively, the attorney general argues there was no error, and even if there was, any error was harmless.