Opinion ID: 2595540
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Instructional Claim

Text: Defendant contends the court erred in instructing the jury pursuant to CALJIC Nos. 2.01 and 2.02 regarding the use of circumstantial evidence. He argues that by informing the jury, if one interpretation of the evidence appears to you to be reasonable and the other interpretation to be unreasonable, it would be your duty to accept the reasonable interpretation and reject the unreasonable, the court permitted the jury to base a finding of guilt on a degree of proof less than beyond a reasonable doubt. We have repeatedly rejected similar claims, and do so again here. ( People v. Bradford (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1229, 1346, 65 Cal.Rptr.2d 145, 939 P.2d 259.)