Does a prosecutor misstate the elements of robbery in his closing argument?

It is true that the prosecutor misstated the elements of robbery in rebuttal closing. There is no indication that the prosecutor did so for any improper purpose, including, but not limited to, an "attempt to absolve the prosecution from its prima facie obligation to overcome reasonable doubt on all elements." (People v. Hill (1998) 17

Page 13

Cal.4th 800, 829.) And there is no evidence that defendant was prejudiced by the misstatement. The trial court clearly and correctly instructed the jury regarding the elements of robbery after the prosecutor's argument. The court also instructed the jury that if there was any conflict between the court's instructions and something the attorneys had said, the jury must follow the law as explained to it by the court. We presume that the jury followed all the instructions. (People v. Gonzales, supra, 51 Cal.4th at p. 940.)

The judgment is affirmed.