Does a prosecutor commit misconduct by referring to a glass pipe he threw at a deputy as a crack pipe?

Defendant contends that the prosecutor committed misconduct by referring to the glass pipe he threw at the deputy as a "crack pipe or whatever it was" in rebuttal. Defendant alternately argues that the cumulative effect of the alleged instructional errors and the prosecutor's statement prejudiced him. We conclude that there was no misconduct, and that even assuming error, defendant was not prejudiced. Because defendant has failed to establish error on the basis of any of his claims, his cumulative error argument necessarily fails as well. (People v. Bradford (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1229, 1382 (Bradford) [no cumulative error if the challenged rulings were not erroneous].)