What is the test for assignment of misconduct by a prosecuting attorney on appeal?

"Misconduct of the prosecuting attorney may not be assigned as error on appeal if it has not been assigned at the trial unless, the case being closely balanced and presenting grave doubt of the defendant's guilt, the misconduct contributed materially to the verdict or unless the harmful results of the misconduct could not have been obviated by a timely admonition to the jury. Subject to the foregoing two exceptions, it is the general rule that error predicated on the alleged misconduct of the prosecutor cannot be raised on appeal in the absence of (a) an assignment of such misconduct as error and (b) a request to the trial court to instruct the jury to disregard it. A mere objection to the allegedly prejudicial statements without a request to the court to instruct the jury to disregard them is ordinarily insufficient to raise the question of misconduct on appeal. Whether a prosecutor has been guilty of prejudicial misconduct must be determined in the light of the particular factual situation involved. [] . . . [] Finally, . . . the judgment will not be reversed unless, after a review of the entire cause, it appears that it is reasonably probable that a result more favorable to the defendant would have occurred had the district attorney refrained from the misconduct in question. If it is asserted that the alleged misconduct is of constitutional dimensions, it need only be clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained." (People v. Bryden (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 159, 182-183, internal quotations and citations omitted.)