How have the courts interpreted a prosecutor's comment during closing argument?

Appellant contends on appeal that the prosecutor's comment during closing argument was prejudicial misconduct and therefore the trial court's ruling was an abuse of discretion. The People disagree and argue that the prosecutor's comment was not misconduct because (1) there was considerable confusion regarding the nature of the trial court's evidentiary limitation in its prior ruling with respect to the possibility of using the stereo testimony to show appellant's intent, and (2) the prosecutor customarily has wide latitude to argue reasonable inferences from the existing evidence. (See People v. Thornton (2007) 41 Cal.4th 391, 454 [in closing argument, prosecutors have wide latitude to discuss and draw inferences from the evidence presented at trial, and whether the inferences the prosecutor draws are reasonable is for the jury to decide].) In any event, the People argue that any potential prejudice was cured when the trial court sustained the objection and admonished the jury.