What is the state of the law for the prosecution to misstate the law and burden of proof in their closing argument?

We conclude the prosecution's statements during rebuttal were well within the realm of acceptable argument. Even if the prosecution's statements were improper, we cannot say they constituted prejudicial error. It is not reasonably probable that the outcome would have been any different, had the prosecutor's statements not been made. (People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836.)

Defendant complains of four instances of the prosecution misstating the law and burden of proof. Misstatement of the law during closing argument is misconduct. (People v. Huggins (2006) 38 Cal.4th 175, 253, fn. 21.) "'[I]t is improper for the prosecutor to misstate the law generally [citation], and particularly to attempt to absolve the prosecution from its prima facie obligation to overcome reasonable doubt on all elements. [Citation.]' [Citation.]" (People v. Hill (1998) 17 Cal.4th 800, 829-830, 832.)