What is the standard of proof in a sexual assault case?

need only be nonimaginary, rather than that the evidence must exclude all reasonable doubts. As we explained in People v. Centeno, supra, 60 Cal.4th at page 672, 180 Cal.Rptr.3d 649, 338 P.3d 938, where we disapproved a similar prosecutorial argument, a statement that the jury must set aside unreasonable inferences is permissible, but does not itself describe the standard of proof: "It is not sufficient that the jury simply believe that a conclusion is reasonable. It must be convinced that all necessary facts have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt." Contrary to the prosecutor's argument here, a belief that is "not imaginary" and is "based in the evidence" does not necessarily meet the beyond a reasonable doubt standard. By suggesting that the People's burden was satisfied if the evidence supported a reasonable, nonimaginary belief in guilt, the prosecutor erred.