Challenges to CALCRIM instructions rejected. Appellant challenged several CALCRIM instructions given at his trial for stalking and assault, and argued that the cumulative impact of the errors warrants reversal even if none of the individual errors did. The appellate court found that CALCRIM No. 100 was not a prejudicial burden shifting instruction. CALCRIM No 101 did not erroneously instruct the jury regarding outside influences on the jury and jury opinions toward the verdict. CALCRIM Nos. 102 and 104 did not incorrectly instruct on a juror’s notes and on the court reporter’s notes. CALCRIM No. 104 did not improperly shift the burden of proof by focusing on the jury’s inquiry on deciding which witnesses to believe and on what the facts are. CALCRIM No. 200 did not improperly coerce or invade the province of the jury. CALCRIM No. 220 did not improperly imply that bias against the defendant is permissible for reasons other than arrest, charge, and trial. CALCRIM Nos. 223 and 224 are not contradictory, confusing, and misleading. CALCRIM No. 226 does not misstate the law on honest forgetfulness and mistaken recollection. CALCRIM No. 252 does not misstate the law on the union of act and intent. CALCRIM No. 300 does not improperly suggest that the defense has a duty to produce “some” evidence. CALCRIM No. 302 does not undermine the presumption of innocence by implying that all prosecution witnesses are truthful. CALCRIM No. 355 does not misstate the law by implying that a defendant has a duty to present a defense. CALCRIM No. 370 does not improperly imply that jurors have a duty to reach a decision. Nor does it allow the jury to consider any free-floating motive which has nothing to do with the charged crimes or does it shift the burden of proof. CALCRIM No. 915 does not fail to allow the jury to consider the absence of injury or require it to find emotional distress. CALCRIM No. 1301 does not incorrectly instruct on the crime of stalking. CALCRIM instructions in general are not erroneous by collectively referring to individual jurors as “you.” Since no individual error occurred in the instructions, the appellate court also rejected appellant’s cumulative impact and ineffective assistance of counsel arguments.