What is the standard of conduct for a motion for a mistrial in a sexual assault case?

The well established federal and state standards regarding prosecutorial misconduct were summarized in People v. Samayoa (1997) 15 Cal.4th 795, 841." ' "A prosecutor's... intemperate behavior violates the federal Constitution when it comprises a pattern of conduct 'so egregious that it infects the trial with such unfairness as to make the conviction a denial of due process.' " ' [Citations.] Conduct by a prosecutor that does not render a criminal trial fundamentally unfair is prosecutorial misconduct under state law only if it involves ' " 'the use of deceptive or reprehensible methods to attempt to persuade either the court or the jury.' " ' [Citation.]... [Citation.] Additionally, when the claim focuses upon comments made by the prosecutor before the jury, the question is whether there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury construed or applied any of the complained-of remarks in an objectionable fashion. [Citation.]" (Ibid.)

"[W]e review a ruling on a motion for mistrial for an abuse of discretion, and such a motion should be granted only when a party's chances of receiving a fair trial have been irreparably damaged." (People v. Ayala (2000) 23 Cal.4th 225, 283.)

Here, the prosecutor's argument did not constitute an egregious pattern of misconduct and did not infect the trial with unfairness. (People v. Samayoa, supra, 15 Cal.4th at p. 841.) We therefore address the matter under state law and determine whether the prosecutor used reprehensible methods and whether there was a reasonable probability of a more favorable result absent the prosecutor's conduct.