What is the test for establishing prejudice under the standard of reasonable doubt?

Defendant has not established prejudice under this standard. The evidence showed the bag was either under defendant's head or extremely close to it, and baggies with the same skull design were found it both the methamphetamine bag and a bag found on his bicycle's handlebars. The jury had before it the video of the incident and could reach its own conclusions about how close the bag was to defendant. In his testimony, Aubuchon noted that the methamphetamine bag was found by defendant's head, that it was uncommon for those who sold drugs to let someone else hold their property, and that the closer drugs are to a person, the more likely they belong to him. This testimony leads almost necessarily to a conclusion that the evidence introduced at trial meant the defendant possessed the bag containing methamphetamine. Aubuchon's answer to the improper question added little more. And if the trial court had sustained an objection to the improper question, the prosecutor would have been free to reformulate it as a hypothetical question closely tracking the evidence in the case. (People v. Vang (2011) 52 Cal.4th 1038, 1042, 1045-1046.)

Page 8