People v. Dermesrobian CA2/6

DISCUSSION

Reasonable Doubt Instruction Dermesrobian contends the trial court's explanation of the reasonable doubt instruction impermissibly reduced the prosecutor's burden of proof. We disagree. The trial court gave the standard reasonable doubt instruction three times. (CALCRIM No. 220.) In voir dire, it correctly stated that proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not require proof beyond all doubt. (CALCRIM No. 220 ["the evidence need not eliminate all possible doubt because everything in life is open to some possible or imaginary doubt"; People v. Pierce (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 567, 572 [CALCRIM No. 220 correctly states the law].) In contrast to the cases upon which Dermesrobian relies, the trial court here did not suggest that the jurors should use the same deliberative process they use for everyday decision-making. In People v. Johnson (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 976, 985-986, the trial court impermissibly lessened the prosecutor's burden when it likened the deliberative process to the "kind of decisions you make every day in your life," such as the decision to have children, to go to college, or to go to a particular restaurant. (Id. at pp. 982.) It told the jurors…