What is the burden of proof in a sexual assault case?

²⁴ After defendant's objections, the prosecutor argued to the jury, "The one thing I want to make clear to you about reasonable doubt and presumption of innocence is something that I would like you to keep in mind ... is this: Until you reach a verdict, of course the defendant is not guilty. If a presumption attaches to a defendant when the trial starts, if they are then found guilty somewhere along the way, of course that presumption has vanished." Defendant did not object to this statement.

The trial court instructed the jury the prosecutor was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt every essential element of the charged offenses (CALJIC No. 2.61); defendant was presumed innocent until the contrary was proven beyond a reasonable doubt (CALJIC No. 2.90); and to disregard any conflicting statements made by the attorneys concerning the law (CALJIC No. 1.00).

To the extent defendant contends the prosecutor's remarks misstated the burden of proof required to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, automatic reversal under Sullivan v. Louisiana (1993) 508 U.S. 275, 113 S.Ct. 2078, 124 L.Ed.2d 182 is not compelled because the trial court properly instructed the jury on the required burden of proof.