Appellant was charged with sexual abuse of a child. The prosecutor argued the jury could “presume” guilt based on evidence he committed uncharged sex offenses. The trial court denied a motion for mistrial based on prosecutorial misconduct. The Court of Appeal affirms, finding jurors likely understood the term “presume” in the “colloquial sense,” i.e., “to expect or to believe,” not as a legal presumption requiring them to find appellant guilty of the charged offenses if they believed he committed the uncharged acts. The court further finds that if any misconduct occurred, it was harmless.
^