Does the term "tiebreaker" diluted the prosecution's burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt?

Xicotencatl argues the use of the term "tiebreaker" diluted the prosecution's burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt because it suggested the prosecution need only prove guilt by a preponderance of the evidence since a "tie" is 50-50. We address this claim in light of the fact that "[t]he decision of how to argue to the jury after the presentation of evidence is inherently tactical," (People v. Freeman (1994) 8 Cal.4th 450, 498), and thus, "[r]eversals for ineffective assistance of counsel during closing argument rarely occur" (People v. Moore (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 51, 57). We will not reverse a conviction for ineffective assistance on direct appeal unless "(1) the record affirmatively discloses counsel had no rational tactical purpose for the challenged act or

Page 17

omission, (2) counsel was asked for a reason and failed to provide one, or (3) there simply could be no satisfactory explanation." (People v. Mai (2013) 57 Cal.4th 986, 1009.)