What is the burden of proof against a prosecutor in a sexual assault case?

[113 Cal.App.3d 292] In summation, the burden of proof is on the defendant to show the existence of misconduct. Even if misconduct exists, it is waived on appeal by no objection at the trial level and is not prejudicial if the objection is sustained as to the misconduct and the jury is told to disregard it unless the case is a close one where there is grave doubt as to the defendant's guilt or if the harm suffered by the misconduct is irreparable. (People v. Perez (1962) 58 Cal.2d 229, 247-248, 23 Cal.Rptr. 569, 373 P.2d 617; People v. Lyons (1958) 50 Cal.2d 245, 252, 324 P.2d 556.) This burden of proof was not met in the instant case, and the record reflects no objections were made to the prosecutor's statements.

We would close this issue with a direct quote by the court from the case of People v. Manson, supra, 61 Cal.App.3d 102, 213, 132 Cal.Rptr. 265, to wit: "While the prosecutor must be fair, he cannot be expected to be a saint."