In People v. Otero (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 865, the court disapproved the prosecutor's use of a diagram depicting the outlines of California and Nevada that showed ocean to the left of California and a dollar sign in southern Nevada, but contained inaccuracies such as showing a city called "San Diego" in the northern part of California. (Otero, supra, 210 Cal.App.4th at p. 869.) At the bottom of the diagram was the statement, "'Even with incomplete and incorrect information, no reasonable doubt that this is California.'" (Ibid.) The point being made by the diagram and the accompanying statement--that even with inaccurate information it was possible to say beyond a reasonable doubt the state depicted was California--was reiterated by the prosecutor during closing argument before the trial court sustained a defense objection and told jurors to disregard the diagram and rely solely on the definition of reasonable doubt provided in the instructions. (Id. at p. 870.) The appellate court found the argument improper (though harmless under the Chapman standard) because it urged jurors to "'jump to a conclusion, a process completely at odds with the jury's serious task of assessing whether the prosecution has submitted proof beyond a reasonable doubt.'" (Id. at pp. 872, 873.)