What is the test for reasonable doubt in a sexual assault case?

On the other hand, defendant has not brought to our attention any opinion which has adopted his arguments, save for People v. McCullough (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 169 (McCullough). In McCullough, the trial court attempted extemporaneously to answer several questions about the elements of the crime and the meaning of reasonable doubt that the jury asked in the midst of deliberation. The court answered, in part: "You have to understand that you must decide the case on the basis of the evidence presented here in the courtroom, and not on the basis of any guesswork or speculationbut only on the evidence presented by either side here in the courtroom. [] Is that clear?" This prompted another juror question: "So then the doubt must arise from evidence?" The court responded: "Well, I would answer that yes, if you are sayingif your question iswhat is reasonable doubtreasonable doubt is that state of the case which, after a comparison and consideration of all of the evidencethat is the evidence introduced in the trialafter a comparison and consideration of all of the evidence, leaves the minds of the jurors in that condition that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction of the truth of the charge." (Id. at pp. 180-181.) On appeal, the appellate court concluded that the trial court misled the jury by telling it reasonable doubt must arise from the evidence,

Page 18

because reasonable doubt may arise from the lack of evidence, but it found the error nonprejudicial under People v. Watson, supra, 46 Cal.2d at p. 836. (McCullough, supra, at pp. 182, 183.)