Can a jury rely on the inference that an offensive word had been deleted from an interrogation transcript?

court pointed out, the inference that an offensive word had been deleted. (Cf. People v. Burney (2009) 47 Cal.4th 203, 231 [recognizing the significant prejudice suffered by a defendant where, "despite redaction, the statement obviously refers directly to the defendant, and involves [improper] inferences that a jury ordinarily could make immediately"].)

Finally, even assuming for the sake of argument the trial court's ruling was erroneous, we would nonetheless find the error harmless. This was a lengthy, complicated trial with an enormous record. Within this record, the challenged portion of defendant's custodial interrogation transcript amounts to just one phrase of one sentence. All actual references to defendant's prior prison term, whether written or audio, were successfully redacted, and neither counsel strayed from the order prohibiting mention of it before the jury. Under these circumstances, the possibility that the jury prejudicially relied on that single redacted phrase to render the wrong verdict are quite slim, particularly in light of the trial court's subsequent jury instructions. Specifically, the court instructed the jury before reviewing the transcripts of defendant's interrogation: "As we go through this, you will see there are transcripts, pages where there is something blocked out, this is all silent on the tape. That is because the court ruled those areas are not relevant for the jury to hear, so don't try to speculate what is there or anything like that. Just move on beyond the response." Then, before deliberations, the trial court added: "Do not consider for any purpose . . . any evidence that was stricken by the court. Please treat it as though you had never heard of it." We presume the jury followed these clear instructions and, accordingly, conclude any error on this record was not prejudicial. (People v. Mooc (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1216, 1234.) The trial court's ruling thus stands.