CALCRIM No. 372 is not unconstitutional. Paysinger appealed from his robbery conviction, arguing that the flight instruction the trial court gave (CALCRIM No. 372) was unconstitutional. He contended that the instruction undermined the presumption of innocence because it presumes the crime was committed. The appellate court rejected Paysinger’s argument. It is highly unlikely that a reasonable juror would have understood the instruction as dictating the “the crime was committed,” or misunderstood it in a way that undermined the presumption of innocence or tended to relieve the prosecution’s burden of proof.