When will the court grant a motion for a new trial based on prosecutorial misconduct?

motion for new trial based on prosecutorial misconduct. [] In citing [People v. Panah (2005) 35 Cal.4th 395, 462], the court notes that 'prosecutorial misconduct involves the use of deceptive and reprehensible methods to persuade the trial court or the jury.' [] In this case I don't think it even comes close to rising to that level. I don't think, as the defense argued, that this invoked the golden rule such that [it] would require the jury to walk in . . . the victim's shoes or imagine what the victim would have suffered. He made a comment about the victim deserving justice, but it was in [the] context [of explaining the reasonable doubt standard] . . . . [] . . . [] I sustained the objection at that point. [] And I believe that the emphasis was that [the jury was] to follow the standard and explanation. This was a passing comment. I don't feel based on everything that was presented to me, the conduct of the prosecutor throughout the proceeding was that he was in any way intending to be deceptive, and his conduct in no way in this court's opinion was reprehensible nor was he using those methods to persuade the jury to decide this case based on emotion. [] The court [must] consider everything in totality. And as I've indicated, I don't believe that this had any impact at all on the jury. It was just one small portion. I did sustain that objection. I'm presuming that the jury heard that objection sustained and did not consider it."

2. Analysis

As an initial matter, we could conclude that by failing to request an admonition or curative instruction, defendant forfeited the misconduct argument on appeal. (People v. Seumanu (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1293, 1328 ["It is well settled that

Page 20