Is there a reasonable likelihood that a jury would have understood the language of CALCRIM No. 370 to mean that motive is exempt from the rule requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt?

We do not think there is a reasonable likelihood the jury would have understood the language of CALCRIM No. 370 to mean that motive is, in appellant's words, "a special form of circumstantial evidence that is exempt from the rule requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt." As we explained in People v. Ibarra (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 1174 at page 1193: "CALCRIM No. 370 instructs on motive ... not on burden of proof. The charge to the jury elsewhere instructed that the defendant is

Page 23