What is the effect of the prosecutor's misconduct in determining that appellant was not suffering from diminished capacity at the time of the murder?

Concerning appellant's sanity, however, the matter is different. Having determined that appellant was not suffering from diminished capacity, the jury nevertheless had the option on additional testimony and further reflection to determine that, at the time of the killing, he was in fact insane and consequently not guilty on that basis. Because of the prosecutor's conduct, no fair opportunity was ever afforded appellant to have such a determination made. And since we are unable to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the cumulative impact of these repeated acts of misconduct had no effect in bringing about the guilty verdict (Chapman v. California (1966) 386 U.S. 18, 24, 87 S.Ct. 824, 828, 17 L.Ed.2d 705; People v. Williams (1971) 22 Cal.App.3d 34, 58, 99 Cal.Rptr. 103), we are compelled to reverse the jury's finding that appellant was sane at the time of the murder.

[125 Cal.App.3d 294]