Does a prosecutor's closing argument regarding contrived self-defense constitute prosecutorial misconduct?

Moreover, viewing the prosecutor's statements in context, we find no reasonable likelihood that jurors understood them as defendant asserts, especially since the jury was instructed pursuant to CALCRIM No. 3471 that, if the jury found that "defendant used only non-deadly force, and the opponent responded with such sudden and deadly force that the defendant could not withdraw from the fight, then the defendant had the right to defend himself with deadly force and was not required to try to stop fighting, communicate the desire to stop to the opponent[,] or give the opponent a chance to stop fighting." (See People v. Cortez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 101, 131; see also People v. Carey, supra, 41 Cal.4th at p. 130 [we presume the jurors understood, correlated, and correctly applied the instructions].)

Given our conclusions, we also reject defendant's related argument that the prosecutor's comments during closing arguments regarding contrived self-defense constituted prosecutorial misconduct, regardless of whether defendant forfeited the issue by failing to object at trial. (People v. Friend (2009) 47 Cal.4th 1, 29 ["When a claim of misconduct is based on the prosecutor's comments before the jury, ' "the question is

Page 13