How have the courts interpreted the reasonable doubt standard?

argument by repeatedly misstating the reasonable doubt standard. During her argument to the jury, the prosecutor focused on the issue of self-defense and told the jury the law does not support a conclusion the defendant acted in self-defense. She argued, If you find there is self-defense, you are saying his actions, the defendant's conduct was absolutely acceptable. This is a misstatement of the law. [I]t is not necessary for the defendant to establish self-defense by evidence sufficient to satisfy the jury that the self-defense was true, but if the evidence is sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant was justified, then he is entitled to an acquittal. (People v. Sanchez (1947) 30 Cal.2d 560, 571, 184 P.2d 673.)