What is the standard of review used to determine whether a defendant was prejudiced by the court's failure to prohibit the prosecutor's argument?

Defendant contends he was prejudiced by the court's failure to prohibit the prosecutor's argument. Defendant, however, does not set forth the standard we should use to examine the alleged prejudice. In contrast, respondent relies on the state standard set forth in People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836. We can resolve this claim without determining the correct standard of review. Based on this record, we can declare that any presumed error was harmless beyond any reasonable doubt.

The evidence conclusively established defendant's guilt for the charged crimes. Moreover, the jury was properly informed that defendant had prior felony convictions for first-degree burglary and evading police officers. The jury also learned that defendant had a misdemeanor conviction for resisting arrest. Based on the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt, and the evidence of his other prior felony convictions, we can determine beyond any reasonable doubt that the court's alleged error did not contribute to the verdicts. (See Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24.) The record reveals

Page 26