Is a prosecutor's questioning of appellant in a sexual assault case prejudicial?

Furthermore, appellant did not admit making the vulgar comments the prosecutor inquired about, and appellant points to no place in the record where the People put on evidence appellant made the comments. The trial court instructed the jury that questions posed by attorneys are not evidence. Specifically, the court told the jury, "Nothing that the attorneys say is evidence. . . . Their questions are not evidence. Only the witnesses' answers are evidence. The attorneys' questions are significant only if they helped you to understand the witnesses' answers. Do not assume that something is true just because one of the attorneys asked a question that suggested it was true." We presume the jury followed the trial court's instructions and disregarded the comments the prosecutor's questions attributed to appellant. (People v. Coffman (2004) 34 Cal.4th 1, 83.)

In any event, even assuming the jury took the prosecutor's questions as evidence appellant made the vulgar remarks, it is not reasonably probable the questioning resulted in prejudice. (People v. Felix (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 997, 1007-1008 ["Erroneous admission of other crimes evidence is prejudicial if it appears reasonably probable that,

Page 6