How have the courts interpreted the prosecutor's argument in a mental health trial for a finding of insanity?

We do not read the prosecutor's initial argument as inviting the jury to consider the penalty in deciding whether defendant was insane at the time of his crimes or as a suggestion that a finding of sanity might turn defendant loose to reoffend. Rather, we interpret the argument to suggest that because the evidence of defendant's guilt was so strong, defendant, who would not accept full responsibility for his actions, felt an insanity plea was his only option. In any event, any error was cured by the court's further instruction, explaining that a finding of insanity was not a "get out of jail free" card, and expressly telling the jury not to consider where or for how long defendant would be confined in making its decision. Absent evidence to the contrary, we presume the jury followed the court's instruction. (People v. Gray (2005) 37 Cal.4th 168, 217.)