What is the test for misconduct in a criminal case where a prosecutor's comment to the jury that the jury can restore law and order to the community was impropriety?

admonishment to the jury to ignore the misconduct, or the claim of error is forfeited. (People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1184-1185.) Because defendant argues, in the alternative, that his counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object to the prosecutor's argument and because the People have addressed the issue on the merits, we will also reach the merits of the issue.

"We review the prosecutor's remarks to determine whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury misconstrued or misapplied them. [Citation.] Also, we do not view the prosecutor's remarks in isolation but rather 'in the context of the argument as a whole.' [Citation.]" (People v. Adanandus (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 496, 512.)

Under the federal Constitution, a prosecutor commits misconduct if he uses deceptive or reprehensible methods to persuade the jury, and such actions infect the trial with such unfairness as to make the defendant's conviction a denial of due process. (People v. Gonzales (2011) 51 Cal.4th 894, 920.) Under state law, a prosecutor commits misconduct if he uses such methods even if they do not result in a fundamentally unfair trial. (Ibid.)

In People v. Adanandus, in which the defendant was convicted of murder based on a shooting from a vehicle, the court found no impropriety in the prosecutor's comment that the jury could restore law and order to the community. (People v. Adanandus, supra, 157 Cal.App.4th at p. 511.) The court explained, "[I]t 'is permissible to comment on the

Page 18