Does the Attorney General have a valid argument that a prosecutor's argument in a sexual assault case was misconduct because it was inflammatory and sought to engender sympathy for the victim's son?

Defendant contends the prosecutor's argument constitutes misconduct because it was inflammatory and sought to engender sympathy for the son as an additional victim. The Attorney General does not dispute that a reasonable jury might construe the prosecutor's argument as defendant asserts. (People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1202-1203 [In reviewing " 'comments made by the prosecutor before the jury, the question is whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury construed or applied any of the complained-of remarks in an objectionable fashion.' "].) The Attorney General correctly asserts, however, that any potential error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.