Does defendant have demonstrated any reasonable probability of a more favourable result if defense counsel objected to the prosecutor's rebuttal argument?

Nor has defendant demonstrated prejudice. As we have discussed, the natural and probable consequences element is readily apparent on these facts. Defendant drove over 90 miles per hour, sometimes in the opposing lane, on a dark, winding road at night with alcohol in his system. The jury was properly instructed that the second element of implied malice required that the natural and probable consequences of [defendant's driving] were dangerous to human life. (See CALCRIM No. 520.) The jury was also instructed that if the attorneys' comments on the law conflict with the court's instructions, the jury was to abide by the court's instructions. We presume the jury followed those instructions (People v. Boyette (2002) 29 Cal.4th 381, 436), and find defendant has not demonstrated a reasonable probability of a more favorable result had defense counsel objected to the prosecutor's rebuttal argument.

C. No Cumulative Prejudice