Does the prosecutor's brief allusion to a "benefit of the doubt" theory during argument affect the burden of proof in a sexual assault case?

The prosecutor informed the jury that the standard for a conviction is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which was bolstered by reasonable doubt instructions given before and after the jurors heard the evidence. The prosecutor's fleeting allusion to a "benefit of the doubt" theory did not deprive appellant of a fair trial. Defense counsel's objection was promptly sustained and the panel was admonished that this theory misstates the law. Under the circumstances, there is "no reasonable likelihood the jury construed the prosecutor's remarks [urging them not to give the defendant the benefit of the doubt] as properly suggesting that the burden of proof was not guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." (People v. Edwards (2013) 57 Cal.4th 658, 741-742.)

Reviewing courts cannot reverse a judgment absent a clear miscarriage of justice. (People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800, 844.) Even if the prosecutor made two improper comments during argument, they did not prejudice appellant's right to a fair trial. The purported errors, if any, were cured by a prompt admonition, and were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given the overwhelming evidence of appellant's guilt.

Page 9