What is the test for preserving a claim of prosecutorial misconduct on appeal?

"Generally, a claim of prosecutorial misconduct is preserved for appeal only if the defendant objects in the trial court and requests an admonition, or if an admonition would not have cured the prejudice caused by the prosecutor's misconduct. [Citations.]" (People v. Ledesma (2006) 39 Cal.4th 641, 726.) "[T]he initial question to be decided in all cases in which a defendant complains of prosecutorial misconduct for the first time on appeal is whether a timely objection and admonition would have cured the harm. If it would, the contention must be rejected [citation]; if it would not, the court must then and only then reach the issue whether on the whole record the harm resulted in a miscarriage of justice within the meaning of the Constitution." (People v. Green (1980) 27 Cal.3d 1, 34, abrogated on other grounds by People v. Martinez (1999) 20 Cal.4th 225.)

Defense counsel did not object to any of the statements appellants now claim constituted misconduct, and appellants do not argue in their briefs that an admonition would not have cured any prejudice. While we do not find there was misconduct, we are satisfied that an admonition by the court in each case would have cured any perceived harm. Accordingly, the claims of prosecutorial misconduct are not cognizable on appeal. (People v. Smith (2003) 30 Cal.4th 581, 633.) We reach the merits, however, in order to demonstrate counsel was not ineffective for failing to object.

Page 19