The prosecutor’s burden of proof was not lessened by CALCRIM No. 3517. Appellant challenged the language of CALCRIM No. 3517 which told the jury that the prosecutor had the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed kidnaping by violence or menace rather than a lesser included offense of false imprisonment. He argued that the phrasing of the prosecutor’s burden as a comparative lessened the burden of proof. The appellate court rejected the argument and affirmed. CALCRIM No. 3517 was not the primary instruction on burden of proof, and other instructions given properly instructed the jury on the prosecutor’s burden. Appellant failed to demonstrate that a reasonable juror interpreted CALCRIM No. 3517 in the manner he claimed.