P.

DISCUSSION

Defendant asserts the jury might have found reasonable, rather than unreasonable,

self-defense if not for the cumulative effect of several errors. He asserts that portions of

the prosecutor's closing argument misled the jury about self-defense principles. He also

challenges the court's response to the jury's request (after deadlock) for definitions

relevant to self-defense. Finally, he argues the trial court erred in denying his motion to

exclude a rebuttal witness's testimony.

We find no error.

I. Prosecutor's Closing Arguments

A prosecutor has wide latitude to vigorously argue the prosecution's case;

however, it is improper for the prosecutor to misstate the law. (People v. Hill (1998)

Cal.4th 800, 819, 829.) When evaluating claims of improper argument to the jury, the

question is whether there is a reasonable likelihood the jury construed the prosecutor's

statements in an objectionable manner. (People v. Samayoa (1997) 15 Cal.4th 795, 841.)

3 Defendant asserts the prosecutor misled the jury about self-defense principles in

the following portions of her rebuttal argument:

"Common sense and logic tells us that you…