CALCRIM No. 220 does not violate due process. In appellant’s trial for lewd and lascivious acts on a child under 14, the trial court instructed the jury with CALCRIM 220. On appeal, appellant contended this instruction prevented the jury from considering a lack of evidence in deciding whether reasonable doubt existed because of the phrase “the evidence that was received throughout the entire trial.” The appellate court rejected the argument, finding that CALCRIM No. 220 does not suggest an impermissible definition of reasonable doubt to the jury. It neither lowers the prosecution’s standard of proof nor raises the amount of doubt the jury must find in order to acquit.