How have the courts cured the misconduct of a prosecutor in a civil case?

aggregate prejudicial effect greater than the sum of its parts. (People v. Woods, supra, 146 Cal.App.4th at p. 117.) The jury instruction the People relied on to cure the misconduct was merely that arguments are not evidence; it did not include an admonition to refer to the other instructions and give them controlling weight over arguments of counsel. Here, by contrast, we deal with a single instance of prosecutorial misstatement bearing upon a state law issue. The court did refer the jury back to the instructions (although we acknowledge that it did not sustain defense counsel's objection and expressly explain the correct standard, as it ought to have done under the circumstances). The specific instruction given on the subject was correct, and the evidence of heat of passion was weak.