Is a defendant entitled to an admonition for failing to object to all but one of the Prosecutor's remarks in opening statement and closing argument?

Defendant failed to object to all but one of the instances of asserted misconduct. We are not persuaded a timely objection and request for admonition would have been futile, or an admonition insufficient to cure any harm. (Cf. People v. Navarrete (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 828, 834-835; People v. Johnson (1981) 121 Cal.App.3d 94, 103-104.) Accordingly, he has forfeited his claims with respect to the prosecutor's remarks in opening statement and closing argument.

With respect to the prosecutor's examination of Hale, defendant did not assign the questioning as misconduct. Nevertheless, we conclude he preserved his claim of prosecutorial misconduct for appeal, because "through his relevance objection he gave the trial court an opportunity to correct the asserted abuse an opportunity the court took advantage of by" sustaining defense counsel's objection. (People v. Young, supra, 34 Cal.4th at p. 1186.)

Turning to the prosecutor's questioning of Hale, "[a] prosecutor commits misconduct by intentionally eliciting inadmissible testimony. [Citation.]" (People v. Abel (2012) 53 Cal.4th 891, 925; accord, People v. Smithey (1999) 20 Cal.4th 936, 960.) We think it possible the prosecutor believed albeit erroneously the testimony was admissible.⁴⁴ Even if an experienced prosecutor legitimately could have harbored such a

Page 72

belief, however, "a showing of bad faith or knowledge of the wrongfulness of his or her conduct is not required to establish prosecutorial misconduct. [Citation.]" (People v. Smithey, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 961.)