People v. Witous CA4/1

DISCUSSION

Witous seeks reversal of her conviction based on alleged prosecutorial

misconduct.4 She claims that during closing argument the prosecutor improperly attempted to diminish the People’s burden of proof by misstating

Witous uses the term “prosecutorial misconduct,” which “ ‘is somewhat of a misnomer to the extent that it suggests a prosecutor must act with a culpable state of mind.’ ” (People v. Centeno (2014) 60 Cal.4th 659, 666–667 (Centeno).) “ ‘A more apt description of the transgression is prosecutorial error’ ” (id. at p. 667), and we therefore use the term “prosecutorial error.” 3 the law. As we explain, Witous forfeited the issue, and we find no prosecutorial error. A. Forfeiture To preserve a claim of prosecutorial error for appeal, “ ‘a criminal defendant must make a timely and specific objection and ask the trial court to admonish the jury to disregard the impropriety.’ ” (People v. Clark (2011) 52 Cal.4th 856, 960.) “The failure to timely object and request an admonition will be excused if doing either would have been futile, or if an admonition would not have cured the harm.” (Ibid.) However, “[a] prosecutor’s misstatements of law are generally…