How have the courts dealt with allegations of prosecutorial misconduct in a sexual assault case?

In addition to what appears to have been intentional misconduct in reading from the police report the informant's statement, defendant identifies [49 Cal.3d 535] several other actions by the prosecutor which he characterizes as misconduct. We observe initially that defendant failed to object to some of the statements and argument he now claims as prejudicial misconduct. Because " 'the trial court should be given an opportunity to correct the abuse and thus, if possible, prevent by suitable instructions the harmful effect [of misconduct] upon the minds of the jury' " (People v. Green (1980) 27 Cal.3d 1, 27, 164 Cal.Rptr. 1, 609 P.2d 468), a defendant will be deemed to have waived the objection if he fails to raise the matter at trial. "[T]he initial question to be decided in all cases in which a defendant complains of prosecutorial misconduct for the first time on appeal is whether a timely objection and admonition would have cured the harm. If it would, the contention must be rejected ...; if it would not, the court must then and only then reach the issue whether on the whole record the harm resulted in a miscarriage of justice within the meaning of the Constitution." (Id. at p. 34, 164 Cal.Rptr. 1, 609 P.2d 468. See also, People v. Malone (1988) 47 Cal.3d 1, 36-37, 252 Cal.Rptr. 525, 762 P.2d 1249.) ¹⁷ We consider defendant's claims in light of these well settled rules.