Does the Attorney General have a constitutional obligation to object to comments made by the Defendant at trial?

^17. Defendant complains that in closing argument, the prosecutor seized on the lack of motive evidence to cast doubt on the running man's involvement. Defendant did not object to the comments at trial, however (see People v. Rodrigues (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1060, 1125), and in any event, the propriety of the trial court's ruling does not turn on the prosecutor's later argument.

^18. The Attorney General argues defendant forfeited his constitutional claims by failing to object on those grounds in the trial court. We find no forfeiture, because any such objection would have been futile. (See People v. Wilson (2008) 44 Cal.4th 758, 793.)

^19. It has been held that a witness who testifies as to the defendant's good character may have his or her credibility tested by questions asking whether he or she has heard of certain rumors, occurrences, or specific acts of misconduct. (People v. Darby (1952) 114 Cal.App.2d 412, 440-441.) The present case does not present that type of situation.