What is the test for finding that a prosecutor's comments about the lack of subpoena violated a defendant's federal constitutional rights?

Despite the one instance of misconduct by the prosecutor, this misconduct was not prejudicial. Prosecutorial misconduct violates a defendant's federal Constitutional rights when it comprises a pattern of conduct so egregious that it infects the trial with such unfairness as to make the conviction a denial of due process. (People v. Gionis (1995) 9 Cal.4th 1196, 1214; People v. Hill (1988) 17 Cal.4th 800, 819.) We reject that the comments made by the prosecutor about the lack of a subpoena violated defendant's federal Constitutional rights. A majority of the argument was properly addressed to the failure to call logical witnesses and present documentary evidence, which was legitimate argument. The brief references to the lack of subpoena did not infect the trial with such unfairness to make the conviction a denial of due process.

Prosecutorial misconduct that violates state law is only cause for reversal when it is reasonably probable that a result more favorable to the defendant would have occurred

Page 30

had the district attorney refrained from the untoward conduct. (People v. Milner (1988) 45 Cal.3d 227, 245.)