What is the test for reversible misconduct in a criminal case?

"Under California law, a prosecutor commits reversible misconduct if he or she makes use of 'deceptive or reprehensible methods' when attempting to persuade either the trial court or the jury, and it is reasonably probable that without such misconduct, an outcome more favorable to the defendant would have resulted. [Citation.] Under the federal Constitution, conduct by a prosecutor that does not result in the denial of the defendant's specific constitutional rights . . . but is otherwise worthy of condemnation, is not a constitutional violation unless the challenged action '"so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process."' [Citations.]" (People v. Riggs (2008) 44 Cal.4th 248, 298.)

As an initial matter, we note that all but one of appellant's challenges are forfeited for the failure of her defense counsel to object below and request curative admonitions. "As a general rule a defendant may not complain on appeal of prosecutorial misconduct unless in a timely fashionand on the same groundthe defendant made an assignment of misconduct and requested that the jury be admonished to disregard the impropriety." (People v. Samayoa (1997) 15 Cal.4th 795, 841.) Nevertheless, to forestall any claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, we reach the merits of appellant's challenges.