Is it error for a prosecutor to suggest that a reasonable interpretation of the evidence satisfies the prosecutor's burden of proof?

In People v. Centeno (2014) 60 Cal.4th 659, 672, the court held that "it is error for the prosecutor to suggest that a 'reasonable' account of the evidence satisfies the prosecutor's burden of proof." The court explained, "Here, the prosecutor's argument began with what the jury could consider: reasonably possible interpretations to be drawn from the evidence. While this is an acceptable explanation of the jury's starting point, it is only the beginning. . . . The standard of proof is a measure of the jury's level of confidence. It is not sufficient that the jury simply believe that a conclusion is reasonable. It must be convinced that all necessary facts have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. [Citation.] The prosecutor, however, left the jury with the impression that so long as her interpretation of the evidence was reasonable, the People had met their burden. The failure of the prosecutor's reasoning is manifest." (Ibid.)