What is the effect of Section 226 of the CALCRIM No. 226(1) of the Criminal Code on a witness testimony?

- has universal application to witnesses and nonwitnesses alike. (See generally People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800, 819 [prosecutor's have wide latitude in closing argument and may properly base their arguments on matters of common knowledge and experience].) Moreover, the jury was properly instructed per CALCRIM No. 362 that it could consider the veracity of appellant's pretrial statements about the burglary in determining whether he was guilty of that offense. So even though CALCRIM No. 226 was inapt as to appellant, we do not believe the prosecutor committed reversible error by invoking it in this case.