In People v. Roder (1983) 33 Cal.3d 491, 496-498, 189 Cal. Rptr. 501, 658 P.2d 1302, the court concluded the statutory presumption that a defendant knows property is stolen when he receives it without inquiry under circumstances which should cause a person to reasonably inquire to ascertain the right of the transferor to the property was an unconstitutional conclusive presumption. In a criminal case, an evidentiary device "is unconstitutional if it relieves the prosecution of its burden of proving all elements of the criminal offense beyond a reasonable doubt." ( People v. Roder (1983) 33 Cal. 3d 491, 496-497 189 Cal. Rptr. 501, 658 P.2d 1302.) " 'The device must not undermine the factfinder's responsibility at trial, based on evidence adduced by the State, to find the ultimate facts beyond a reasonable doubt. . ..'" ( Id. at p. 497.) " 'An entirely permissive inference or presumption, which allows--but does not require--the trier of fact to infer the elemental fact from proof by the prosecutor of the basic one and which places no burden of any kind on the defendant' " is constitutional. ( Id. at pp. 497-498.) " 'A mandatory presumption . . . which tells the trier of fact that he or they must find the elemental fact upon proof of the basic fact, at least unless the defendant has come forward with some evidence to rebut the presumed connection between the two facts,' " is unconstitutional. ( Id. at p. 498.) The use of a mandatory presumption in a criminal case is unconstitutional whether the presumption is conclusive or rebuttable. ( Id. at p. 501.) However, a mandatory presumption may be reconfigured as a permissive inference for use in a criminal case. ( Id. at p. 505.)