How have courts instructed on reasonable doubt in the language of section 1096 of the Penal Code?

People v. Simpson, 43 Cal.2d 553, 565, 275 P.2d 31, 38: Here the trial court properly instructed on reasonable doubt in the language of Penal Code section 1096. It then added the following: "The term 'reasonable doubt,' as used in these instructions, means a doubt which has Some good reason for its existence Arising out of evidence in the case; such doubt as you are able to find a Reason for in the evidence. As applied to the evidence in criminal cases, it means an Actual and substantial doubt growing out of the unsatisfactory nature of the evidence in the case. It does not mean a doubt which arises from some mere whim or vagary or from [54 Cal.App.3d 64] any groundless surmise, suspicion or guess." (Fn. omitted.) The court found the italicized language to be improper, but in the context of the case nonprejudicial.