The reasonable doubt jury instruction CALCRIM 220 does not violate due process. In this case, the undercover police detective testified that he bought .27 grams of cocaine with a $20 bill from an individual he identified as Westbrook. Soon thereafter, Westbrook was arrested. When searched, no cocaine or money was found on his person or the immediate area. The defense argued that “they arrested the wrong guy.” The appellate court rejected appellant’s argument that CALCRIM 220 prohibited the jurors from considering the lack of evidence, instead finding that the instruction told the jury that it could not consider evidence that was not offered at trial. Further, the remaining instructions clearly conveyed to the jury that the People had the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.