Can the testimony of a sexual assault victim be enough to convict a defendant beyond a reasonable doubt?

The prosecutor's statement in closing, "If you have one witness that says something and you believe that that witness was telling the truth when they made that statement, that is enough to find someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt," was a correct statement of the law. (See People v. Gammage (1992) 2 Cal.4th 693, 700; People v. Rincon-Pineda (1975) 14 Cal.3d 864, 885.) Additionally, defense counsel noted in closing, "you heard this conviction of a sexual assault crime may be placed on the testimony of a complaining witness alone, but nowhere in that jury instruction did you hear any change to the concept of reasonable doubt. [The prosecution] need[s] to supply proof and they need to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt." And then, in rebuttal, the prosecutor again noted the testimony of a sexual assault victim can be enough if the jury believes it but noted this "does not change the burden of proof." Rather, if the jury "heard a piece of evidence and you believe that piece of evidence. And that [sic] you're confident that that evidence is true and when you apply it to the law

Page 46