[Published Opinion] In a case where the jury found appellant guilty of vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence, the Court of Appeal held that the prosecutor misstated the law involving circumstantial evidence in closing argument. Specifically, the court found that “innocence” under CALCRIM No. 224 refers to being not guilty of the charged crime, not to being not guilty of the charged crime and any lesser included offenses, as the prosecutor argued to the jury. The Court of Appeal further held that the trial court incorrectly answered a jury question about the use of post-crash conduct to find gross negligence, and that the cumulative impact of these errors was prejudicial.
^