What is the test for a jury to convict a defendant based on his out-of-court statements?

Moreover, the jury was instructed that they could not convict defendant based on his pre-trial statements alone. The jury was instructed, "You have heard evidence that the Defendant made oral statements before the trial. You must decide whether the Defendant made any of those statements, in whole or in part. If you decide that the Defendant made such statements, consider the statements, along with all of the evidence, in reaching your verdict. It is up to you to decide how much importance to give to the statements. [] Consider with caution any statement made by the Defendant tending to show his guilt unless the statement was written or otherwise recorded. [] The Defendant may not be convicted of any crime based on his out-of-court statements alone. You may rely on Defendant's out-of-court statements to convict him only if you first conclude that other evidence shows that the charged crime was committed. [] That other evidence may be slight and need only be enough to support a reasonable inference that a crime was committed. [] . . . [] You may not convict the Defendant unless the People have proved his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." We presume the jurors followed the instructions and relied on all the evidence, not just his statement, in convicting defendant. (People v. Doolin (2009) 45 Cal.4th 390, 442.)

Page 16