How has the court treated a claim of prosecutorial misconduct against a prosecutor for intentionally eliciting inadmissible testimony?

Appellant objected only to the prosecutor's first question and neither objected nor asked to approach when the prosecutor rephrased the question. Appellant forfeited this particular claim of prosecutorial misconduct because he did not timely object on this ground in the trial court, which is a prerequisite to preserving such a claim for appellate review. (See People v. Dykes (2009) 46 Cal.4th 731, 766 [defendant's relevance objection was insufficient to preserve a claim of prosecutorial misconduct; no request for admonition].)

Even if appellant had not forfeited this claim, we would reject it on the merits. A prosecutor engages in misconduct by intentionally eliciting inadmissible testimony. (People v. Valdez (2004) 32 Cal.4th 73, 125.) The record affords no basis for concluding that the prosecutor did so in this case. The prosecutor had a statement from Doss that

Page 30