What is the test for a defense counsel's objection to an allegation of misconduct by a prosecutor in a sexual assault case?

As noted, defense counsel's objection was sustained by the trial court. Further, the jury was later instructed that evidence admitted for a limited purpose could not be considered for any other purpose. The jury is presumed to have followed the court's instructions. (People v. Cain (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1, 34.) Thus, even if we were to find the prosecutor's statements constituted misconduct, we would find the conduct harmless under these facts. We observe here that prosecutorial misconduct objected to and properly admonished does not constitute grounds for reversal except where the case is closely balanced and there is grave doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or where the act

Page 8

done or the remark made is of such a character that a harmful result cannot be obviated or cured by any retraction of counsel or instruction of the court. (People v. Berryman (1936) 6 Cal.2d 331, 337.) As we discuss further below, the case against defendant was not a close one, nor were the statements such that they were not cured by the trial court's instruction to the jury.