Does the prosecution's use of descriptions "nail clippers" and "cuticle cutters" in their cross-examination and closing argument constitute prejudicial misconduct?

Springfield contends the prosecution's use of the descriptions "cuticle clippers" and "nail clippers" during his cross-examination of Springfield and his use of the description "cuticle cutters" in his closing argument constituted prejudicial misconduct because these descriptions misstated the evidence. Springfield has forfeited this contention because he did not object to the prosecutor's questions and remarks on this ground. (People v. Redd, supra, 48 Cal.4th at pp. 733-734.)