What is the effect of the Court of Appeal's instructions on extrajudicial statements?

Regardless, even if we accept defendant's characterization for the sake of argument, the instruction at issue merely informed the jury that, in contrast with the commission of a crime, the degree of a crime may be proved by a defendant's statement alone. (People v. Rosales (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1254, 1260-1261 [rejecting challenge to CALCRIM No. 359 on ground it is confusing as to extrajudicial statements and identity]; cf. People v. Rivas, supra, 214 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1427-1428 [concluding CALCRIM No. 359 is confusing, but deficiency does not rise to level of due process violation and error was harmless].) Immediately following the sentence challenged by defendant, the jury was instructed, "You may not convict the defendant unless the People have proved his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." The jury was so instructed on more than one occasion. Under these circumstances, we do not agree with defendant that as to the prosecution's burden of proof, the corpus delicti instruction was confusing or that the instructions, as a whole, were confusing. (People v. Rosales, supra, at pp. 1260-1261.)

Page 25