Does a defendant have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury misconstrued or misapplied the instruction?

Moreover, defendant has failed to meet the burden imposed upon a defendant,"[w]hen [he] claims an instruction was subject to erroneous interpretation by the jury, [to] demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that the jury misconstrued or misapplied the instruction in the manner asserted. [Citation.]" (People v. Covarrubias (2016) 1 Cal.5th 838, 926.) Defendant simply

Page 30

concludes that respondent must demonstrate that a failure to clarify the allegedly confusing instructions was harmless under the constitutional standard of Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24 (Chapman) (beyond a reasonable doubt). As defendant has failed to show any reasonable likelihood that the jury misconstrued or misapplied the instruction, his conclusion is premature.