Can a jury read the correct definition of reasonable doubt at the close of evidence?

the court read it CALCRIM No. 103, which sets forth the correct standard in the same language as CALCRIM No. 220. After the close of evidence, the court instructed the jury with CALCRIM No. 220 and, apparently, sent copies of this instruction, along with all other instructions given, into the jury room for use during deliberations. The remark was made on November 2, 2012, and the jury did not begin deliberating until November 13, 2012. Under all the circumstances, we conclude there is no possibility the deliberating jurors understood the court's brief remarkif they even remembered itto be the correct definition or an alternative definition of the reasonable doubt standard. (See People v. Avila (2009) 46 Cal.4th 680, 715-716 [potentially misleading remark by trial court during voir dire not judicial misconduct because remark was not intended to be and was not a substitute for full instructions at end of trial].)