What is the test for a jury to determine whether a defendant has to prove their motive in order to be found guilty of manslaughter?

Finally, even if the instruction was erroneous, defendant has not established a reasonable likelihood that the jury applied the challenged instruction in a manner that violates the law. (People v. Castaneda (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1292, 1320.) She claims there was a reasonable likelihood the jury understood the motive instruction "to mean that the defendant does have to prove [her] motive, at least in regard to self-defense and manslaughter, which depend on facts peculiarly within [her] knowledge, and which, in the instant case, depended primarily on facts presented in [defendant's] own testimony in

Page 11

the defense case." Not so. The court gave instructions on self-defense (CALCRIM No. 505), heat-of-passion manslaughter (CALCRIM No. 570), and imperfect self-defense (CALCRIM No. 571), all of which instructed that the People bore the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant did not act with justification, in the heat of passion, or in imperfect self-defense. The jury is presumed to have followed its instructions (People v. Chism (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1266, 1299; People v. Yeoman (2003) 31 Cal.4th 93, 138-139), and defendant has not demonstrated otherwise.