What constitutes improper or ineffective assistance of counsel in a sexual assault case?

Citing comments by the prosecutor during jury voir dire, defendant claims the foregoing statement "improperly vouched for the credibility of [Doe 1, Doe 2, and Doe 3]" because it allowed her to "substantively argue[] . . . the preconceptions she had identified . . . about when a sexual assault victim should report and how sexual assault victims should act were misconceptions." Further, since a failure to timely object and ask the jury be admonished to disregard the comment waives a prosecutorial misconduct claim (People v. Cunningham (2001) 25 Cal.4th 926, 1000-1001), he further argues trial counsel's failure to object constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. We disagree.

We find the prosecutor's argument did not constitute misconduct. "A prosecutor commits misconduct by referring in argument to matters outside the record. [Citation.]" (People v. Cunningham, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 1026.) But "the prosecution has broad discretion to state its views regarding which reasonable inferences may or may not be drawn from the evidence," and "[a]rguments by the prosecutor that otherwise might be deemed improper do not constitute misconduct if they fall within the proper limits of rebuttal to the arguments of defense counsel. [Citation.]" (Ibid.) In addition, "An attorney may choose not to object for many reasons, and the failure to object rarely establishes ineffectiveness of counsel. [Citation.]" (People v. Kelly (1992) 1 Cal.4th 495, 540.)