In what circumstances have the courts reversed a jury's verdict in a criminal case where the prosecutor argued to the jury that the burden of proving was reasonable?

In People v. Ellison (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1342, the prosecutor made several arguments to the effect that "you have to look at whether or not it's reasonable or unreasonable for the defendant to be innocent" and "you've got to look at what's reasonable and what's unreasonable, when you look at all the evidence," and to vote not guilty where there is a reasonable interpretation of the evidence that points to innocence because "that means it's reasonable that the defendant is innocent. . . ." (Id. at p. 1351.) The appellate court concluded that "the prosecutor improperly attempted to lessen the People's burden of proof by arguing to the jury that the beyond-reasonable-doubt standard required the jury to determine whether defendant's innocence was reasonable." (Id. at p. 1353.) However, the court determined that reversal was not required because the jury was properly instructed on the principles of law related to the presumption of innocence and the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the prosecutor reminded the jury that" '[t]he law comes from the Judge, '" the court gave curative instructions following the defendant's objections to the prosecutor's arguments, and the jury acquitted defendant of the most serious charges. (Ibid.)