What is the current state and federal standard of conduct in the context of prosecutorial misconduct?

The federal and state standards regarding prosecutorial misconduct are well established. A prosecutor's intemperate behavior violates the federal Constitution only if it comprises a pattern of conduct 'so egregious that it infects the trial with such unfairness as to make a conviction a denial of due process.' " ' [Citations.] 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.]" (People v. Samayoa (1997) 15 Cal.4th 795, 841.)

Page 28

Furthermore, a " ' " 'prosecutor is given wide latitude during argument. The argument may be vigorous as long as it amounts to fair comment on the evidence, which can include reasonable inferences, or deductions to be drawn therefrom. [Citations.] (People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800, 819.)

Nevertheless, it is misconduct " 'for the prosecutor to misstate the law generally [citation], and particularly to attempt to absolve the prosecution from its prima facie obligation to overcome reasonable doubt on all elements. [Citations.]' " (People v. Hill, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 829.) Moreover, "[a] prosecutor's 'vigorous' presentation of facts favorable to his or her side 'does not excuse either deliberate or mistaken misstatements of fact.' [Citation.]" (Id. at p. 823.)

"To preserve for appeal a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, the defense must make a timely objection at trial and request an admonition; otherwise, the point is reviewable only if an admonition would not have cured the harm caused by the misconduct. [Citation.]" (People v. Price (1991) 1 Cal.4th 324, 447.) "Additionally, when the claim focuses upon comments made by the prosecutor before the jury, the question is whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury construed or applied any of the complained-of remarks in an objectionable fashion. [Citation.]" (People v. Samayoa, supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 841.)

To put it another way," '[t]o 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 [challenged] 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.]' [Citation.]" (People v. Brown (2003) 31 Cal.4th 518, 553-554.)

We address each of appellant's contentions in turn.

Page 29