How have the courts dealt with claims of prosecutorial misconduct by referencing religious practices in closing argument?

Defendant claims that the district attorney committed prosecutorial misconduct by referencing these religious rituals during closing argument. Claims of prosecutorial misconduct are deemed waived unless there is a timely objection and request for a curative admonition in the trial court, unless the harmful effects of the misconduct could not have been obviated by a timely admonition to the jury. (People v. Gionis, supra, 9 Cal.4th at p. 1215.) There was no timely objection or request for a curative admonition in the trial court; defendant has failed to demonstrate why such an admonition would not have obviated any harmful effects of the prosecutor's remarks. Defendant relies on two cases to support her assertion that an admonition would not have sufficed to cure the harm done here. The first case involved the admission of detailed, extensive, and irrelevant testimony about the defendant's animal sacrifices, which the prosecutor fully took advantage of during closing argument, "paint[ing] a picture of [defendant] as a man who could no longer distinguish between animals and people." (Ortiz I, supra, 95 Cal.App.3d at p. 934.) The second case similarly involved extensive abusive comments by the prosecutor during argument, disparaging the defendant's Jewish faith and essentially arguing that the defendant's religious beliefs made it more likely that he committed arson. (People v. Simon (1927) 80 Cal.App. 675, 677-678.) The limited, mild comments by the prosecutor here simply do not rise to that level. The claim of prosecutorial misconduct is therefore waived.