How have the courts dealt with a defendant's claim that the prosecutor committed misconduct by referring to the price of a gun in his closing argument?

Defendant's claim that the prosecutor committed misconduct by referring to matters outside the evidence was forfeited because defense counsel did not object and request a jury admonition. When the price of the gun was first brought up by the prosecutor, the court sustained defendant's objection. The prosecutor wrongly brought up the price of the gun in closing argument, but defendant did not object. When there is not a timely objection at trial and request for admonition, the point is only reviewable if an admonition would not have cured the harm caused by the misconduct. (People v. Price (1991) 1 Cal.4th 324, 447.)

Any harm caused by the misconduct could have been cured by an admonition. Defendant could have easily objected and requested the court to reinforce the jury's understanding that the price of the gun was not evidence that was before the jury. Therefore, defendant forfeited his claim that the prosecutor committed misconduct by referring to matters outside of evidence because defendant failed to object and the harm could have been cured by an admonition. (People v. Price, supra, 1 Cal.4th at p. 447.)