How has the Court interpreted instructions in a jury trial with proof beyond a reasonable doubt?

Regarding a jury trial with proof beyond a reasonable doubt, we have explained the following: "Even viewing the instruction in isolation, the word 'if' in the operative clause --'If the defendant fled or tried to flee immediately after the crime was committed' -- does not logically modify only the phrase 'the defendant fled or tried to flee,' as defendant contends. Rather, 'if' modifies the entire phrase, including the words 'after the crime was committed.' Thus, it is highly unlikely a reasonable juror would have understood the instruction as dictating that 'the crime was committed.' [Citation.] [] This conclusion is supported by the other instructions, which told the jury the following things (among others): (1) 'You must decide what the facts are'; (2) 'It is up to all of you and you alone to decide what happened'; (3) 'A defendant in a criminal case is presumed to be innocent. This presumption requires that the People prove a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt[]'; and (4) 'Remember that you may not convict a defendant of any crime unless you are convinced that each fact essential to the conclusion that the defendant's guilt[] of that crime has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.' " (People v. Paysinger (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 26, 30.) These same additional instructions were given here. Finally, as in Paysinger, there was no question that a crime occurred; the

Page 7