In People v. Edwards (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 1092, the defendant argued CALJIC No. 2.03, a nearly identical jury instruction to CALCRIM No. 362, should not have been utilized. The Edwards court rejected defendant's argument that the instruction placed unfair emphasis on defendant's statements and testimony. (Id. at pp. 1102-1103.) The Edwards court concluded: "When testimony is properly admitted from which an inference of a consciousness of guilt may be drawn, the court has a duty to instruct on the proper method to analyze the testimony. CALJIC No. 2.03 is a correct statement of the law; that it may single out defendant is not a determinative factor." (Id. at p. 1104.) CALJIC No. 2.03, as given in Edwards, provides: "'If you find that before this trial the defendant made a willfully false or deliberately misleading statement concerning the crimes for which he is now being tried, you may consider such statement as a circumstance tending to prove a consciousness of guilt. However, that conduct is not sufficient by itself to prove guilt, and its weight and significance, if any, are matters for your determination.'" (Edwards, supra, 8 Cal.App.4th at p. 1101.)