What is the test for determining whether a defendant's mental state will be dangerous in the future?

Defendant claims the prosecutor improperly based his argument on "future dangerousness" notwithstanding the absence of evidence to support that theory. We disagree. His conduct in the commission of the instant offenses, evidence of other violent conduct, and the testimony of his own expert relating that conduct to his mental state is sufficient evidence to warrant an inference that he might engage in similar conduct in the future. Nor was this argument prohibited by People v. Murtishaw (1981) 29 Cal.3d 733, 767-774, 175 Cal.Rptr. 738, 631 P.2d 446. That case involved only the admissibility of expert opinion predicting future dangerousness.