Is reasonable doubt not defined to lower the People's burden of proof?

Prosecutors should not define reasonable doubt in terms that could be taken to lower the People's burden. (People v. Nguyen (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 28, 36.) Here, the prosecutor did not redefine reasonable doubt. In fact, the prosecutor made no reference to reasonable doubt, or burdens of proof, when he advised the jurors to use their common sense. Thus, his comments did not suggest the jury assess the evidence using a lower burden of proof, and defendant's argument that the prosecutor redefined reasonable doubt is simply not supported by the record and incorrect.

Because the issue is forfeited, we need not consider defendant's claim of a due process violation resulting from the prosecutor's remarks. Nonetheless, we note that the prosecution showed the jurors a slide with the proper jury instruction for reasonable doubt, and the trial court correctly instructed the jury on the definition of reasonable doubt and reminded the jury it should take the law from the court's instructions, not from remarks of counsel. We presume the jury heeded those instructions. (People v. Holt (1997) 15 Cal.4th 619, 662.)