When will a prosecutor be found to have made a claim of misconduct when they argued "the burden of proving every element of the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt"?

Defendant also points out that in People v. Hill, supra, 17 Cal.4th 800, it was said to be misconduct when the prosecutor argued, "[t]here must be some evidence from which there is a reason for a doubt." (Id. at p. 831, italics deleted.) The court stated the prosecutor "committed misconduct insofar as her statements could reasonably be interpreted as suggesting to the jury she did not have the burden of proving every element of the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt." (Ibid.) The court also surmised that it was possible the prosecutor "was claiming there must be some affirmative evidence demonstrating a reasonable doubt." (Ibid.) We do not interpret the remarks of the prosecutor here as doing either thing.