Does a defendant have a constitutional right to have counsel present their closing argument to the trier of fact?

A defendant has a constitutional right to have counsel present closing argument to the trier of fact (People v. Simon (2016) 1 Cal.5th 98, 147), and counsel should be given wide latitude in closing argument (People v. Farmer (1989) 47 Cal.3d 888, 922, disapproved on another ground in People v. Waidla (2000) 22 Cal.4th 690, 724, fn. 6). But the trial court has broad discretion to control the scope of closing arguments and may ensure that argument does not " 'stray unduly from the mark.' " (Simon, supra, 1 Cal.5th at pp. 147-148.) Counsel may not state or assume facts in argument that are not in evidence (People v. Stankewitz (1990) 51 Cal.3d 72, 102), and we review a trial court's decision to limit defense counsel closing argument for abuse of discretion (Simon, supra, 1 Cal.5th at pp. 147-148).