People v. Villa CA2/6

DISCUSSION

Reasonable Doubt Argument Appellant contends that the trial court erroneously sustained the prosecution's objection to his "formulation of reasonable doubt," made in closing argument. He urges that this constituted structural error by lowering the prosecution's burden of proof. We disagree. Before closing argument, the trial court instructed jurors with CALCRIM No. 220, as follows: "The fact that criminal charges have been filed against the defendant is not evidence that the charges are true. You must not be biased against the defendant just because he has been arrested, charged with a crime, or brought to trial. [¶] A defendant in a criminal case is presumed to be innocent. This presumption requires that the People prove a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. . . . [¶] Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you with an abiding conviction that the charge is true. The evidence need not eliminate all possible doubt because everything in life is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. [¶] In deciding whether the People have proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt, you must impartially compare and consider all the evidence that was…