What constitutes misconduct by a prosecutor in a criminal case?

Misconduct by the prosecutor violates the federal Constitution when it "'"'comprises a pattern of conduct "so egregious that it infects the trial with such unfairness as to make the conviction a denial of due process."'"'" (People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800, 819.) "'Conduct by a prosecutor that does not render a criminal trial fundamentally unfair is prosecutorial misconduct under state law only if it involves "'"the use of deceptive or reprehensible methods to attempt to persuade either the court or the jury."'" [Citation.]' [Citation.]" (Ibid.)

"'"'[T]he prosecution has broad discretion to state its views as to what the evidence shows and what inferences may be drawn therefrom.'" [Citation.]' [Citation.] 'When we review a claim of prosecutorial remarks constituting misconduct, we examine whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury would have understood the remark to cause the mischief complained of. [Citation.]' [Citation.] 'To prevail on a claim of prosecutorial misconduct based on remarks to the jury, the defendant must show a reasonable likelihood the jury understood or applied the complained-of comments in an improper or erroneous manner. [Citations.] In conducting this inquiry, we "do not lightly infer" that the jury drew the most damaging rather than the least damaging meaning from the prosecutor's statements.' [Citation.]" (People v. Spector (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1335, 1403.)

"'"'[A] defendant may not complain on appeal of prosecutorial misconduct unless in a timely fashionand on the same groundthe defendant made an assignment of misconduct and requested that the jury be admonished to disregard the impropriety. [Citation.]'"' [Citation.] A defendant who fails to object at trial 'waive[s] any error or misconduct emanating from the prosecutor's argument that could have been cured by a timely admonition.' [Citation.]" (People v. Spector, supra, 194 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1402-1403.)

Page 8

Defendant argues the prosecutor coached a witness on how to answer a question posed by the judge. Defendant did not raise this issue when the alleged misconduct occurred, but instead raised it only in his new trial motion. The issue therefore is forfeited.⁴ (People v. Spector, supra, 194 Cal.App.4th at p. 1403.)