How have courts dealt with allegations of misconduct by a prosecutor at trial?

Defendant forfeited the latter four categories of alleged misconduct by failing to object and to request curative admonitions at trial. (People v. Lopez, supra, 42 Cal.4th at p. 966.) But even assuming these issues have not been forfeited, we find no misconduct occurred. The prosecutor's statements about defense counsel's arguments were likely understood by the jury to mean the evidence proved defendant's guilt of each charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. (See People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158, 1203 ["we must view the statements in the context of the argument as a whole"].) The jury likely did not conclude the prosecutor was impugning the integrity of defense

Page 14

counsel or trying to shift the burden of proof to defendant. And by mentioning the employee victims of defendant's offenses, the prosecutor did not invite the jury to view the crime through the eyes of the victim; instead, she merely described the offenses and illustrated the seriousness of the offenses. (See People v. Martinez (2010) 47 Cal.4th 911, 956-957 [although appeals to sympathy for victims are improper, prosecutor may describe effect of criminal conduct inflicted on victims].)

Finally, defendant asserts the cumulative effect of the court's errors and the prosecutor's misconduct resulted in an unfair trial. But no error or misconduct occurred, and therefore no prejudice could accumulate. (People v. Phillips (2000) 22 Cal.4th 226, 244.)

The judgment is affirmed.