What is the impact of a prosecutor's objection to a defendant's line of questioning?

The prosecutor's argument involved no misconduct. The situation here is very different from that in People v. Frohner (1976) 65 Cal.App.3d 94, on which defendant relies. In Frohner, the court found that the prosecutor committed misconduct when he allowed the jury to infer that the defendant purposely failed to call a witness when in fact the prosecutor had failed to take reasonable efforts to secure the witness. (Id. at p. 109.) Here the prosecutor made a proper objection to defendant's line of questioning; he was not responsible for the unavailability of any witness or other evidence defendant sought to produce and he did not misstate the facts. Defendant had denied that he went by the nickname "C" and he also denied going by the name "Stay," which evidence showed he had used at the time of the prior shooting. The prosecutor's comment on this evidence was not improper.

V. Cumulative Prejudice