How have the courts treated the prosecution's closing argument in a second-degree murder case?

In the section of the transcript quoted above, the trial court did not explicitly admonish the jury as requested by defense counsel. However, the trial court agreed with defense counsel that the argument was a misstatement of the law and instructed that jury that they should follow the instruction regarding the definition of murder that would be later read to them. The trial court later instructed the jury as to the definition of first and second degree murder. (RT at 1229-31.) A jury is presumed to follow its instructions. Weeks v. Angelone, 528 U.S. 225, 234 (2000). Based on these circumstances, the prosecutor's argument did not prejudice petitioner. Accordingly, appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise a prosecutorial misconduct claim based on this argument.

Petitioner next cites the following closing argument as alleged prosecutorial misconduct:

Page 15

(RT at 1117-18.)

The trial court above sustained trial counsel's objection and advised the jury to disregard the prosecutor's improper argument that it must find petitioner guilty of first degree murder if it found that he intended to kill the victim "like he said he did." As noted above, the trial court went on to define first and second degree murder for the jury. (RT at 1229-31.) Based on these circumstances, the prosecutor's argument did not prejudice petitioner. See Weeks v. Angelone, 528 U.S. 225, 234 (2000) (a jury is presumed to follow jury instructions). Accordingly, appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise a prosecutorial misconduct claim based on this argument.