CALCRIM instructions 103 [reasonable doubt], 302 [evaluating conflicting evidence] and 359 [corpus delecti] do not misstate the law. The appellate court rejected appellant’s contention that because 103 warns the jury of three impermissible bases of prejudice, but mentions only one that cannot be considered as evidence, the average juror would then consider the fact that defendant was arrested and brought to trial as evidence of the crime. It rejected appellant’s contention that 302 was not a correct statement of law in that it allowed the number of witnesses to be considered a factor in deciding which of two conflicting versions of fact to credit as this is a factor that can be considered. Finally, it disagreed with appellant’s interpretation of 359, finding that there is no difference between an instruction requiring that there must be evidence on each element of the charged crime and one that cautions that there must be evidence a crime was committed.