jurors understood instruction in California

2015(People v. Brown (2004) 33 Cal.4th 382, 391-392 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 624 , 93 P.3d 244 ] [upholding instruction substantially similar to that given here] (Brown); see Victor v. Nebraska (1994) 511 U.S. 1, 14-15 [ 127 L.Ed.2d 583 , 114 S.Ct. 1239 ] [‘“An instruction cast in terms of an abiding conviction as to guilt, without reference to moral certainty, correctly states the government’s burden of proof.”].) Thus, contrary to Self’s assertion, there is no reasonable likelihood the jurors understood the instruction to mean ‘“they must articulate *43 reason and logic for their doubt . . . before such

2015(People v. Brown (2004) 33 Cal.4th 382, 391-392 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 624 , 93 P.3d 244 ] [upholding instruction substantially similar to that given here] (Brown); see Victor v. Nebraska (1994) 511 U.S. 1, 14-15 [ 127 L.Ed.2d 583 , 114 S.Ct. 1239 ] [‘“An instruction cast in terms of an abiding conviction as to guilt, without reference to moral certainty, correctly states the government’s burden of proof.”].) Thus, contrary to Self’s assertion, there is no reasonable likelihood the jurors understood the instruction to mean ‘“they must articulate *43 reason and logic for their doubt . . . before such

2015(People v. Brown (2004) 33 Cal.4th 382, 391-392 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 624 , 93 P.3d 244 ] [upholding instruction substantially similar to that given here] (Brown); see Victor v. Nebraska (1994) 511 U.S. 1, 14-15 [ 127 L.Ed.2d 583 , 114 S.Ct. 1239 ] [‘“An instruction cast in terms of an abiding conviction as to guilt, without reference to moral certainty, correctly states the government’s burden of proof.”].) Thus, contrary to Self’s assertion, there is no reasonable likelihood the jurors understood the instruction to mean ‘“they must articulate *43 reason and logic for their doubt . . . before such

2015(People v. Brown (2004) 33 Cal.4th 382, 391-392 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 624 , 93 P.3d 244 ] [upholding instruction substantially similar to that given here] (Brown); see Victor v. Nebraska (1994) 511 U.S. 1, 14-15 [ 127 L.Ed.2d 583 , 114 S.Ct. 1239 ] [‘“An instruction cast in terms of an abiding conviction as to guilt, without reference to moral certainty, correctly states the government’s burden of proof.”].) Thus, contrary to Self’s assertion, there is no reasonable likelihood the jurors understood the instruction to mean ‘“they must articulate *43 reason and logic for their doubt . . . before such

2015(People v. Brown (2004) 33 Cal.4th 382, 391-392 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 624 , 93 P.3d 244 ] [upholding instruction substantially similar to that given here] (Brown); see Victor v. Nebraska (1994) 511 U.S. 1, 14-15 [ 127 L.Ed.2d 583 , 114 S.Ct. 1239 ] [‘“An instruction cast in terms of an abiding conviction as to guilt, without reference to moral certainty, correctly states the government’s burden of proof.”].) Thus, contrary to Self’s assertion, there is no reasonable likelihood the jurors understood the instruction to mean ‘“they must articulate *43 reason and logic for their doubt . . . before such

2015(People v. Brown (2004) 33 Cal.4th 382, 391-392 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 624 , 93 P.3d 244 ] [upholding instruction substantially similar to that given here] (Brown); see Victor v. Nebraska (1994) 511 U.S. 1, 14-15 [ 127 L.Ed.2d 583 , 114 S.Ct. 1239 ] [‘“An instruction cast in terms of an abiding conviction as to guilt, without reference to moral certainty, correctly states the government’s burden of proof.”].) Thus, contrary to Self’s assertion, there is no reasonable likelihood the jurors understood the instruction to mean ‘“they must articulate *43 reason and logic for their doubt . . . before such

2021The law governing error in jury instructions “When considering a claim of instructional error, we view the challenged instruction in the context of the instructions as a whole and the trial record to determine whether there is a reasonable likelihood the jury applied the instruction in an impermissible manner.” (People v. Houston (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1186, 1229 .) In that context, we must then “determine whether it is reasonably likely the jurors understood the instruction[s] as [defendant] suggests. [Citation.] In making that determination, we must consider several factors including the language

2021The law governing jury instructions “When considering a claim of instructional error, we view the challenged instruction in the context of the instructions as a whole and the trial record to determine whether there is a reasonable likelihood the jury applied the instruction in an impermissible manner.” (People v. Houston (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1186, 1229 .) In that context, we must then “determine whether it is reasonably likely the jurors understood the instruction[s] as [defendant] suggests. [Citation.] In making that determination, we must consider several factors including the language of the i

2015Standard of Review “ ‘In considering a claim of instructional error we must first ascertain what the relevant law provides, and then determine what meaning the instruction given conveys.’ ” (People v. Lopez (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 1297, 1305 .) In deciding whether instructional 2 People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497, 530 . 7 error occurred, we “assume that jurors are intelligent persons and capable of understanding and correlating all jury instructions which are given.” (People v. Mills (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 898, 918 (Mills).) In that context, we must then “determine whether i

2014In deciding whether instructional error occurred, we “assume that jurors are intelligent persons and capable of understanding and correlating all jury instructions which are given.” (People v. Mills (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 898, 918 .) In that context, we then “determine whether it is reasonably likely the jurors understood the instruction[s] as [defendant] suggests. [Citation.] In making that determination, we must consider several factors including the language of the instruction[s] in question [citation], the record of the trial [citation], and the arguments of counsel.” (People v. Nem (2003) 1

2015(People v. Breverman (1998) 19 Cal.4th 142, 172-178 .) Therefore, an error requires reversal only where “an examination of the entire record establishes a reasonable probability that the error affected the outcome.” (Id. at p. 165, citing People v. Watson, supra, at p. 836 & Cal. Const., art.

2014(People v. Breverman (1998) 19 Cal.4th 142, 172-178 .) Therefore, an error requires reversal only where “an examination of the entire record establishes a reasonable 3 probability that the error affected the outcome.” (Id. at p. 165, citing People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818 , 836 & Cal. Const., art.

2023(People v. Kelly, supra, 1 Cal.4th at pp. 525–526.) We review a challenged jury instruction “in the context of the instructions as a whole and the trial record to determine whether there is a reasonable likelihood the jury applied the instruction in an impermissible manner. [Citation.]” (People v. Houston (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1186, 1229 .) In that context, we must determine if it is reasonably likely the jurors understood the instruction as appellant suggests.

2003(See People v. Kelly (1992) 1 Cal.4th 495, 525 [ 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 677 , 822 P.2d 385 ].) In making that determination, we must consider several factors including the language of the instruction in question (ibid..), the record of the trial (Estelle v. McGuire (1991) 502 U.S. 62, 72 [ 116 L.Ed.2d 385 , 112 S.Ct. 475 ]), and the arguments of counsel.

2015(People v. Brown (2004) 33 Cal.4th 382, 391-392 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 624 , 93 P.3d 244 ] [upholding instruction substantially similar to that given here] (Brown); see Victor v. Nebraska (1994) 511 U.S. 1, 14-15 [ 127 L.Ed.2d 583 , 114 S.Ct. 1239 ] [‘“An instruction cast in terms of an abiding conviction as to guilt, without reference to moral certainty, correctly states the government’s burden of proof.”].) Thus, contrary to Self’s assertion, there is no reasonable likelihood the jurors understood the instruction to mean ‘“they must articulate *43 reason and logic for their doubt . . . before such

2015(People v. Brown (2004) 33 Cal.4th 382, 391-392 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 624 , 93 P.3d 244 ] [upholding instruction substantially similar to that given here] (Brown); see Victor v. Nebraska (1994) 511 U.S. 1, 14-15 [ 127 L.Ed.2d 583 , 114 S.Ct. 1239 ] [‘“An instruction cast in terms of an abiding conviction as to guilt, without reference to moral certainty, correctly states the government’s burden of proof.”].) Thus, contrary to Self’s assertion, there is no reasonable likelihood the jurors understood the instruction to mean ‘“they must articulate *43 reason and logic for their doubt . . . before such

2015(People v. Brown (2004) 33 Cal.4th 382, 391-392 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 624 , 93 P.3d 244 ] [upholding instruction substantially similar to that given here] (Brown); see Victor v. Nebraska (1994) 511 U.S. 1, 14-15 [ 127 L.Ed.2d 583 , 114 S.Ct. 1239 ] [‘“An instruction cast in terms of an abiding conviction as to guilt, without reference to moral certainty, correctly states the government’s burden of proof.”].) Thus, contrary to Self’s assertion, there is no reasonable likelihood the jurors understood the instruction to mean ‘“they must articulate *43 reason and logic for their doubt . . . before such

2015(People v. Brown (2004) 33 Cal.4th 382, 391-392 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 624 , 93 P.3d 244 ] [upholding instruction substantially similar to that given here] (Brown); see Victor v. Nebraska (1994) 511 U.S. 1, 14-15 [ 127 L.Ed.2d 583 , 114 S.Ct. 1239 ] [‘“An instruction cast in terms of an abiding conviction as to guilt, without reference to moral certainty, correctly states the government’s burden of proof.”].) Thus, contrary to Self’s assertion, there is no reasonable likelihood the jurors understood the instruction to mean ‘“they must articulate *43 reason and logic for their doubt . . . before such

2021Prosecutorial error “The use of deceptive or reprehensible methods to persuade the jury constitutes [prosecutorial] misconduct.” (People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 411, 475 .) In addition, “it is improper for [a] prosecutor to misstate the law.” (People v. Marshall (1996) 13 Cal.4th 799, 831 (Marshall).) “A defendant asserting prosecutorial misconduct must further establish a reasonable likelihood the jury construed the remarks in an objectionable fashion.” (People v. Duff (2014) 58 Cal.4th 527, 568 (Duff).) 3.

2021Prosecutorial error “The use of deceptive or reprehensible methods to persuade the jury constitutes [prosecutorial] misconduct.” (People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 411, 475 .) In addition, “it is improper for [a] prosecutor to misstate the law.” (People v. Marshall (1996) 13 Cal.4th 799, 831 (Marshall).) “A defendant asserting prosecutorial misconduct must further establish a reasonable likelihood the jury construed the remarks in an objectionable fashion.” (People v. Duff (2014) 58 Cal.4th 527, 568 (Duff).) 3.

2012We independently “assess[] whether instructions correctly state[d] the law [citation] and also whether instructions effectively directed] a finding adverse to a defendant by removing an issue from the jury’s consideration [citations].” (People v. Posey (2004) 32 Cal.4th 193, 218 [ 8 Cal.Rptr.3d 551 , 82 P.3d 755 ].) In deciding whether instructional error occurred, this court “determine^] whether it is reasonably likely the jurors understood the instruction as appellant suggests. [Citation.] In making that determination, we must consider several factors including the language of the instructio

2012We independently “assess[] whether instructions correctly state[d] the law [citation] and also whether instructions effectively directed] a finding adverse to a defendant by removing an issue from the jury’s consideration [citations].” (People v. Posey (2004) 32 Cal.4th 193, 218 [ 8 Cal.Rptr.3d 551 , 82 P.3d 755 ].) In deciding whether instructional error occurred, this court “determine^] whether it is reasonably likely the jurors understood the instruction as appellant suggests. [Citation.] In making that determination, we must consider several factors including the language of the instructio

2003(See People v. Kelly (1992) 1 Cal.4th 495, 525 [ 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 677 , 822 P.2d 385 ].) In making that determination, we must consider several factors including the language of the instruction in question (ibid..), the record of the trial (Estelle v. McGuire (1991) 502 U.S. 62, 72 [ 116 L.Ed.2d 385 , 112 S.Ct. 475 ]), and the arguments of counsel.

2003(See People v. Kelly (1992) 1 Cal.4th 495, 525 [ 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 677 , 822 P.2d 385 ].) In making that determination, we must consider several factors including the language of the instruction in question (ibid..), the record of the trial (Estelle v. McGuire (1991) 502 U.S. 62, 72 [ 116 L.Ed.2d 385 , 112 S.Ct. 475 ]), and the arguments of counsel.