What is the test for a jury to accept a prosecutor's misstatement of the law?

Further, the court told the jury that it must follow the law "as I explain it to you," and that "[i]f you believe that the attorneys' comments on the law conflict with my instructions, you must follow my instructions." "We presume the jury followed the instructions it was given." (People v. Chism (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1266, 1299.) Accordingly, we find no prejudice resulting from the prosecutor's misstatement of the law. We conclude there has been no miscarriage of justice.

Defendant contends his counsel was ineffective in not objecting to the prosecutor's arguments about a kill zone. Necessarily, since defendant has not demonstrated prejudicial prosecutorial misconduct, he has likewise not demonstrated ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to object on the basis of prosecutorial misconduct. (Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 687-688.)

Page 20

The judgment is affirmed.