People v. Otero, 210 Cal. App. 4th 865

Otero was charged by amended information in Orange County Superior Court with four sex offenses against a child and 14 at trial.
Counts1–4 alleged aggravated sexual assault and lewd acts involving sodomy and touching the victim’s vagina; dates spanned 2003–2007.
Otero and the victim were cousins; she described multiple incidents from when she was six to nine years old.
Police and social worker interviews supported the alleged molestations; a recorded interview and a police confession were presented.
During closing, the prosecutor used a PowerPoint diagram depicting California to argue about reasonable doubt; defense objected and the court ordered the slide taken down and a curative instruction given.
Jury convicted on all charges; Otero was sentenced to two consecutive life terms plus an additional term.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Prosecutor’s use of a diagram to illustrate proof beyond a reasonable doubt	Otero	Katzenberger-like improper use of diagram lowers burden	Misconduct; harmless error under curative instructions
Whether curative instruction cured any prejudice	Otero	Instruction insufficient to negate prejudice	Harmless error given proper instruction and lack of prejudicial impact
Whether the standard of review differed from federal due-process standard	Otero	State-law standard applies	State-law standard; reversal not required when harmless

People v. Wallace, 44 Cal.4th 1032 (2008) (reasonable-prosecutor misconduct standard and harmless-error review under state law)
People v. Huggins, 38 Cal.4th 175 (2006) (misstating the law during argument is improper)
People v. Marshall, 13 Cal.4th 799 (1996) (prosecution cannot absolve burden to prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt)
People v. Katzenberger, 178 Cal.App.4th 1260 (2009) (PowerPoint/puzzle imagery; potential quantitative inference and misimpression of proof level)
People v. Jones, 15 Cal.4th 119 (1997) (discusses admonishments and jurors following court's instructions)