In People v. Hudson (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1025, the defendant argued that CALCRIM No. 318 violated his constitutional rights by lowering the prosecution's burden of proof and by denying jurors the ability to consider out-of-court statements as false. As the Hudson court explained: "By stating that the jury 'may' use the out-of-court statements, CALCRIM No. 318 does not require the jury to credit the earlier statements even while allowing it to do so. Thus, we reject defendant's argument that CALCRIM No. 318 lessens the prosecution's standard of proof by compelling the jury to accept the out-of-court statements as true." (Hudson, at p. 1028.)