P.

DISCUSSION

The trial court, which used CALJIC to instruct the jury, did not include CALJIC No. 2.90, explaining the presumption of innocence, burden of proof and defining

1 Statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise noted.

2 reasonable doubt, in its predeliberation instructions.2 The failure to give the instruction appears inadvertent, as Castanon represented that he did not have any instructions to propose in addition to those listed by the trial court and no discussion occurred regarding CALJIC No. 2.90. According to Castanon, the failure to give the instruction is reversible error. We agree based on the court’s failure to define reasonable doubt for the jury. Under federal constitutional law, the “due process clause does not require a trial court to use any particular phrase or form of words when instructing on” the presumption of innocence. (People v. Aranda (2012) 55 Cal.4th 342, 355.) When the trial court gives the “complete text of CALJIC No. 1.00, which inform[s] the jurors in relevant part that they must determine defendant’s guilt based on the evidence received at trial, and not to consider the fact of his arrest or that he is being brought to…