What is the prosecutor's position on the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?

Finally, the prosecutor's remarks are not reasonably interpreted as lessening the beyond a reasonable doubt standard of proof or the People's burden. The trial court had already instructed the jury that the defendant was presumed innocent and the prosecutor was required to prove a defendant guilty (and the deadly weapon allegation) beyond a reasonable doubt, and to ignore any contrary statements by counsel. The prosecutor at the outset of his closing argument reminded the jury that, "It's my responsibility to prove each of those elements beyond a reasonable doubt." We cannot agree the prosecutor's comments suggested the jury should decide the case on a standard less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and, as stated, the jury was properly instructed on the standard of proof. There is thus no reasonable likelihood the jury construed the prosecutor's remarks as suggesting a lesser standard of proof applied; that the burden of proof was not guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. (Accord, People v. Edwards (2013) 57 Cal.4th 658, 734, 741-742.)