How can a non-attorney juror find there to be any reasonable doubt regarding an element that the People need not prove?

muddy the waters. How could a nonattorney juror find there to be any reasonable doubt regarding an element that he or she has been instructed that the People need not prove? Furthermore, the intent instruction given to the jury (correctly) instructed that counts 2 and 3 were specific intent crimes, while the other counts, including the section 647.6 charges of counts 4 and 5, required only proof that defendant "intentionally [did] a prohibited act." Motive and intent are separate and distinct conceptsthough the People's arguments on appeal muddle that point. (People v. Hillhouse (2002) 27 Cal.4th 469, 503-504.) But it is reasonably likely that a nonattorney juror, also instructed that the People need not prove motive, would read the intent instruction as further indication that the only mental state the People needed to prove with respect to counts 4 and 5 is that defendant committed the prohibited acts intentionally.