Centeno

Courts have repeatedly cautioned prosecutors against using diagrams or visual aids to elucidate the concept of proof beyond a reasonable doubt (see, e.g., People v. Medina (1995) 11 Cal.4th 694, 744-745 [ 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 165 , 906 P.2d 2 ] (Medina); People v. Otero (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 865, 874 [ 148 Cal.Rptr.3d 812 ] (Otero); People v. Katzenberger (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 1260, 1269 [ 101 Cal.Rptr.3d 122 ] (Katzenberger)), yet these arguments persist. Here, the prosecutor used a diagram showing the boundaries of California and urged the jury to convict based on a “reasonable” view of the evidence. The argument unduly risked misleading the jury about the standard of proof. The judgment is reversed.

I. BACKGROUND

Defendant lived in a garage that had been converted into two living spaces. Seven-year-old Jane Doe lived in the other section of the garage with her father and brother. Defendant’s space did not have a door.

In March 2008, child protective services received an anonymous report that Jane was being neglected by her father and may have been sexually abused by defendant. Sheriff’s deputies investigated.

Jane’s father initially told deputies that he had passed…