What is the test of misconduct for a prosecutor to reverse a conviction for misconduct in a civil case?

Prosecutorial misconduct requires reversal only if it prejudiced the defendant. "Under traditional application of this state's harmless error rule, the test of prejudice is whether it is 'reasonably probable that a result more favorable to the defendant would have occurred had the district attorney refrained from the comment attacked by the defendant. [Citations.]' [Citation.] However, if federal constitutional error is involved, then the burden shifts to the state 'to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.'" (People v. Bolton (1979) 23 Cal.3d 208, 214.)

We find no prejudicial misconduct here. The prosecutor's comments did not rise to the level of misconduct under the federal standard. That is, the argument was not "'so egregious that it infect[ed] the trial with such unfairness as to make the conviction a denial of due process.'" (People v. Espinoza (1992) 3 Cal.4th 806, 820.)