Can a prosecutor ask prospective jurors whether they would vote to convict if he proved defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?

During jury selection, over defense objection, the prosecutor asked prospective jurors whether they would vote to convict if he proved defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.⁴ As he did at trial, defendant contends the questions were an attempt to commit the jurors to vote in a particular way in violation of former section 1078.⁵ It is "settled that the examination of prospective jurors should not be used `"to ... compel the jurors to commit themselves to vote a particular way[Citations.]" (People v. Fierro (1991) 1 Cal.4th 173, 209, 3 Cal. Rptr.2d 426, 821 P.2d 1302.) The challenged questions did not, however, commit the jurors to vote in any particular way. The prosecutor merely sought assurances that the jurors would properly perform their duty, i.e., would convict if the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The questions were proper, just as the defense could properly have sought assurances that the jurors would acquit if they had a reasonable doubt as to guilt. The questions here were just as proper as those we upheld in Fierro, where the prosecutor "[essentially ... asked the jurors to state whether they would be able to vote guilty if, after deliberations, they were persuaded that the charges had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt." {Ibid.)