What is the burden of proving sexual intent against a prosecutor in a sexual assault case?

it had to vote for innocence. Both the prosecutor and defense counsel indicated that sexual intent had to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The thrust of the prosecutor's rebuttal argument was that defendant's version was unreasonable, which indisputably is not misconduct.⁷ (People v. Centeno, supra, 60 Cal.4th at p. 667 ["When attacking the prosecutor's remarks to the jury, the defendant must show that, '[i]n the context of the whole argument and the instructions' [citation], there was a 'reasonable likelihood the jury understood or applied the complained-of comments in an improper or erroneous manner.' "].) Because the prosecutor did not commit misconduct, defense counsel was not ineffective in failing to object to prosecutorial misconduct.

Page 30

Even assuming misconduct, the error was harmless under any standard.⁸ Jurors were properly instructed that they must find each element beyond a reasonable doubt and properly instructed on the presumption of innocence. (See People v. Cortez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 101, 131.) " '[P]rosecutorial commentary should not be given undue weight in analyzing how a reasonable jury understood . . . instructions. Juries are warned in advance that counsel's remarks are mere argument, missteps can be challenged when they occur, and juries generally understand that counsel's assertions are the "statements of advocates." Thus, argument should "not be judged as having the same force as an instruction from the court." ' " (Id. at pp. 131-132.) Additionally, defense counsel reminded jurors of their burden, arguing: "Beyond a reasonable doubt. Now, what is interesting about that is that burden of proof applies not only to each charge, but it applies to each and every element of the charge."