What is the effect of a prosecutor's statement to a jury that the jury was required to return a sentence of death if "aggravation outweighed mitigation"?

The prosecutor's statements were clearly error, because they left the juror in question with the mistaken impression that the jury "was 'required' to return a sentence of death if 'aggravation outweighed mitigation' without, or even despite, each juror's personal conclusion from the evidence, about whether a sentence of death was appropriate under the circumstances for the offense and offender." (People v. Allen (1986) 42 Cal.3d 1222, 1278, 232 Cal.Rptr.[758 P.2d 1164] 849, 729 P.2d 115, italics in original.) While other aspects of the voir dire of this juror were not necessarily erroneous--she said she would examine the evidence and impose the death penalty only when "necessary," whatever that meant--they did not make it clear that the quoted remarks of the prosecutor were in error, and that it was her duty not to impose the death penalty, regardless of the balance of aggravation and mitigation, unless she believed death to be the appropriate penalty. Thus at least one juror who tried defendant probably did so under an erroneous view of her responsibility. The voir dire of other jurors was not as obviously erroneous, but nonetheless proceeded in much the same vein. ³