How has the court interpreted a statement by the Attorney General arguing child abuse accommodation syndrome?

The court suggested the original statement could have been taken out of context, but when the prosecutor clarified it did not suggest she was speaking of prior abuse. Nor does the record support the claim the prosecutor was arguing child abuse accommodation syndrome. We agree the clarified comment was based on a matter of general knowledge, which is a proper basis for argument. (People v. Harrison (2005) 35 Cal.4th 208, 248.)

Page 9

d. Argument Defendant Would Have Continued the Acts if Not Interrupted

Finally, defendant challenges the argument "[a]nd really if we didn't have any other people there that happened to pull up and see the kissing, we wouldn't be here because [J.V.] probably never would have told or until it got to be something worse and then it would still be just her in an environment where her mom doesn't believe her." But as the Attorney General points out, defense counsel did not object to this argument. The statement he did object to, after the same recess as described above, was that "if other people weren't there, this would go on and would continue." He claimed this was an argument about "future dangerousness, not about the facts of the case." Defendant's attempt in his reply brief to overcome this failure to object fails. Without an objection this claim is forfeited. (People v. Souza (2012) 54 Cal.4th 90, 122.)