Does the court's supplemental instruction in a criminal case significantly lower the prosecution's burden of proof?

Likewise, the court's supplemental instruction did not lower the prosecution's burden of proof. The jury was told it had to presume appellant was innocent of the charges and the prosecution had to prove he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury was informed appellant had to willfully assist, further or promote felonious criminal conduct by members of the gang to be guilty of street terrorism. We presume the jurors understood and applied these instructions. (People v. Gonzales (2011) 51 Cal.4th 894, 940.) Nothing reasonably suggests the court's supplemental instruction may have altered appellant's presumption of innocence or the prosecution's burden of proof.