What is the test for misconduct in a prosecutor's closing argument at a sexual assault trial?

"Prosecutorial argument that denigrates defense counsel directs the jury's attention away from the evidence and is therefore improper. [Citation.] In evaluating a claim of such misconduct, we determine whether the prosecutor's comments were a fair response to defense counsel's remarks. [Citation.]" (People v. Young, supra, 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1189.) Here, the prosecutor was responding to defense counsel's argument that the evidence raised a reasonable doubt as to defendant's guilt and if jurors had any question they were required to acquit defendant. The prosecutor described the correct standard - reasonable doubt -- and properly argued that the doubt defendant sought to invoke was not reasonable. While the prelude to the specific standard may have been unnecessary, the challenged argument neither infected the trial with unfairness nor constituted the use of reprehensible or deceptive methods.

In any event, even if the closing argument amounted to misconduct the argument was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Jurors were properly instructed on reasonable doubt and we must presume jurors followed the court's instructions. ⁵ (People v. Osband (1996) 13 Cal.4th 622, 717.) Moreover, this was not a close case. Defendant admitted one of the charges and evidence of the other was overwhelming.