Does a prosecutor's argumentative comment that "this was all a big misunderstanding" on cross-examination constitute prejudicial misconduct?

Jurors are presumed able to understand and correlate instructions and are further presumed to have followed the court's instructions. (People v. Scott, supra, 200 Cal.App.3d at p. 1095, and cases cited therein.) Counsel's argumentative statement, to which defense counsel interposed a successful evidentiary objection, did not amount to prejudicial misconduct.

The following exchange occurred on cross-examination:

Page 35

Appellant did not respond to the prosecutor's gratuitous comment that "this was all a big misunderstanding" and defense counsel did not interpose an objection to the question. As noted above, the court instructed the jury that "[n]othing that the attorneys say is evidence." Jurors are presumed able to understand and correlate instructions and are further presumed to have followed the court's instructions. (People v. Scott, supra, 200 Cal.App.3d at p. 1095, and cases cited therein.) Counsel's argumentative statement about a misunderstanding, to which appellant offered no response, did not amount to prejudicial misconduct.

The following exchange occurred on cross-examination:

Page 36

The prosecutor's question about reliance on the truth was argumentative and subject to exclusion by the court. (People v. Chatman, supra, 38 Cal.4th at pp. 382-384.) Nevertheless, the question was relatively isolated in the context of the entirety of the cross-examination and did not amount to prejudicial misconduct.

The following exchange occurred on cross-examination:

Page 37