What is the test for establishing a presumption of innocence in a criminal case?

The prosecutor inaccurately described the presumption of innocence. He told the jury during closing argument that although defendant was presumed innocent, "that presumption lifts as soon as the evidence supporting it lifts. ... When you come in here and you see that he's charged with a crime, that's not evidence; so he's presumed innocent. The moment the first witness testifies, now that presumption is starting to lift." That is incorrect. It is well established that the presumption of innocence continues into deliberations. ( People v. Dowdell (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1388, 1408, 174 Cal.Rptr.3d 547.) It could hardly be otherwise, since jurors are required to keep an open mind and not begin to decide any issuenot only the ultimate issue of guiltuntil all the evidence has been presented and deliberations have commenced. (See CALCRIM No. 101.) Telling jurors that the presumption of innocence "is starting to lift" from "the moment the first witness testifies" is a significant mischaracterization of the law. (We note, however, that the jury was instructed in CALCRIM No. 200 to follow only the court's explanations of the law, and we presume the jury did so.)