What is the burden of proving that the jury did not get the correct written instructions?

Second, Sanchez argues that the jury here did not get the correct written instructions. To support this argument, he refers to a discussion about instructions during which the trial court asked if counsel had reviewed the "final packet." From this, as well as the basic fact the trial court did not read the omitted instructions, Sanchez suggests that the trial court had two written packets of instructions: an incomplete packet it read to the jury, and a complete packet that is in the clerk's transcript. From this, Sanchez further speculates that the trial court gave the jury the incomplete written packet, although he admits it is at least equally likely the trial court gave the jury the complete packet of written instructions. We agree it is possible the trial court had two sets of instructions, as instructing a jury is a collaborative process that involves editing, removing, and adding instructions. Even so, we disagree that the mere existence of more than one set of instructions is sufficient to rebut the presumption the jury received the written instructions as contained in the clerk's transcript. True, there can never be absolute assurance that the written instructions sent into a jury room are identical to those orally read. But, this is why there are burdens on appeal. That is, we trust absent an affirmative showing there is reason to distrust. (See People v. Davis (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 168, 172 [appellant's burden to show error on face of record].) The record here provides no reason to distrust that the clerk copied and gave the correct packet of written instructions to the jury. The record contains a correct and

Page 9