Is it improper for a prosecutor to argue that the prosecution has met its burden of overcome reasonable doubt on all elements?

"[I]t is improper for the prosecutor . . . to attempt to absolve the prosecution from its prima facie obligation to overcome reasonable doubt on all elements [citation]." (People v. Marshall (1996) 13 Cal.4th 799, 831.) Often, in attempting to clarify the reasonable doubt concept for the jury, the prosecution runs afoul of this rule by suggesting the prosecution has met its burden if it puts forth the only "reasonable" theory of the significance of the evidence or puts forth an explanation

Page 42

that is not rebutted by the defense. (See Hill, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 832.)