How have the courts interpreted the test for a motion for a mistrial in a sexual assault case?

Finally, appellant asserts the trial court erred by telling the jurors it was up to them to determine what constituted reasonable doubt, thus allowing them to "freely decide the level of proof needed to convict." In context, the court was not telling the jurors they could make up their own standard of proof, but was telling them it was their duty as the finders of fact to determine whether guilt had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. This was an accurate statement of the law. (See People v. Hamlin (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1426 [jury is finder of fact that must be convinced of defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt].)

B. Denial of Motion for Mistrial