How have courts interpreted improper statements by the Attorney General in a criminal case?

Defendant argues he was prejudiced by the prosecutor's misstatement of the facts and cites People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800 for the proposition that the statements were improper. In People v. Hill, the court held that a prosecutor's reference to facts not in evidence is "`clearly . . . misconduct . . . .'" (Id. at p. 828). The court reasoned that such statements can lead to circumvention of the law because of the jury's high regard for the prosecutor. (Ibid .) While the Attorney General concedes the prosecutor's arguments were improper, he contends the issue was waived, and, in any event, the court's admonishment to the jury cured any potential prejudice.

"`To preserve for appeal a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, the defense must make a timely objection at trial and request admonition; otherwise, the point is reviewable only if an admonition would not have cured the harm caused by the misconduct.' [Citations.]" (People v. Gionis (1995) 9 Cal.4th 1198, 1215.) To demonstrate incurable harm, defendant must show there is a reasonable possibility the prosecutor's misconduct influenced the verdict. (People v. Cunningham (2001)

25 Cal.4th 926, 1019.)