If a defendant was in a state of the mental state at the time of trial, would he have been convicted of a charge of possession of methamphetamine?

methamphetamine, that state of mind would necessarily indicate he did not know the substance was present and, therefore, did not have the requisite mental state. An instruction intended to be curative was, at best, inadequate and did nothing to disabuse the jury of the incorrect impression left by the prosecutor's misstatements of law in rebuttal argument. In so doing, the trial court effectively ratified the prosecutor's error. (See People v. Morales, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 43; see also U.S. v. Perlaza (9th Cir. 2006) 439 F.3d 1149, 1171.)

Under these circumstances, there was very little reason for the jury to reject the prosecutor's misstatements of the law relative to an element of the offense. Because the trial court overruled defendant's timely objections, there was no admonition to the jury to cure the misstatements. The arguments directly under cut defendant's main defense to an element of the offense. The arguments were made in rebuttal and defense counsel had no opportunity to counter or correct the misstatements. The last word the jury heard on the subject was the trial court's special instruction, which incorrectly left the jury with the impression that defendant could be found guilty, even if he had forgotten he had the methamphetamine. On this record, there is a reasonable likelihood the misstatement of law caused the jury to convict based on this incorrect legal standard, which impermissibly lowered the prosecution's burden of proof. Accordingly, we must reverse the conviction on count 1. (See People v. Centeno (2014) 60 Cal.4th 659, 676-677.)

B. Admission of Evidence of Defendant's Criminal History