Does the trial court erred when it sustained a hearsay objection to a witness's testimony?

Appellant also contends that the trial court erred when, during the defense case, it sustained a hearsay objection to a question asking appellant's brother what appellant told him about the shooting. Appellant contends that the testimony was admissible under the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule, to show that he fled immediately after the shooting because he was afraid of the police. When the court sustained the prosecutor's hearsay objection, however, appellant did not inform the court that he was offering the testimony as an exception to the hearsay rule; the record contains no offer of proof as to what the witness would have stated had he been permitted to answer. Failure to make the offer of proof precludes consideration of the error on appeal. (See, e.g., People v. Rodriquez (1969) 274 Cal.App.2d 770, 777, 79 Cal.Rptr. 240.)

Appellant also complains that the prosecutor committed several instances of prosecutorial misconduct during argument. First, focusing on two sentences out of context, he contends that the prosecutor improperly expressed his personal belief in appellant's guilt. However, a reading of the entire argument indicates that the prosecutor was arguing what he believed the evidence showed; that argument was proper. (See People v. Green (1980) 27 Cal.3d 1, 35, and fn. 20, 164 Cal.Rptr. 1, 609 P.2d 468; cf. People v. Bain (1971) 5 Cal.3d 839, 848, 97 Cal.Rptr. 684, 489 P.2d 564 [argument amounts to assertion that prosecutor's belief in defendant's guilt based on facts not presented at trial].)