Is a prosecutor misconduct by misstating the law on reasonable doubt?

Appellant contends that the prosecutor committed misconduct by misstating the law on reasonable doubt as referred to in the italicized portions of the closing argument cited above. He urges that the prosecutor "stated repeatedly that the law did not allow [the jury] to acquit appellant based upon one piece of evidence or one inconsistency." We conclude that appellant forfeited his contention as to three of the remarks by his failure to object. (People v. Alfaro (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1277, 1328 ["In order to preserve a claim of misconduct, a defendant must make a timely objection and request an admonition; only if an admonition would not have cured the harm is the claim of misconduct preserved for review"].)

Page 23

In any event, the prosecutor did not commit misconduct. "The applicable federal and state standards regarding prosecutorial misconduct are well established. '"A prosecutor's... intemperate behavior violates the federal Constitution when it comprises a pattern of conduct 'so egregious that it infects the trial with such unfairness as to make the conviction a denial of due process.'"' [Citations.] Conduct by a prosecutor that does not render a criminal trial fundamentally unfair is prosecutorial misconduct under state law only if it involves '"'the use of deceptive or reprehensible methods to attempt to persuade either the court or the jury.'"' [Citation.] As a general rule a defendant may not complain on appeal of prosecutorial misconduct unless in a timely fashionand on the same groundthe defendant made an assignment of misconduct and requested that the jury be admonished to disregard the impropriety. [Citation.] Additionally, when the claim focuses upon comments made by the prosecutor before the jury, the question is whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury construed or applied any of the complained-of remarks in an objectionable fashion. [Citation.]" (People v. Samayoa (1997) 15 Cal.4th 795, 841.)