the jury instructions and the elements of the offenses that the prosecution was required to prove. Additionally, defense counsel addressed this comment in his closing, asking the jury to review the evidence and to follow the law. 84 Moreover, the jury was properly instructed on the charges and the elements of the offenses, see Hogan, 114 P.3d at 56, and it convicted defendant of second degree assault on multiple counts and on one occasion convicted him of only third degree assault. This indicates that the jury was not improperly persuaded to i aged in misconduct by inappropriately appealing to the community,. we conclude that the statements do not rise to the level of plain error requiring reversal of defendant's convictions. See People v. Gallegos, 260 P.3d 15, 28 (Colo.App.2010) (<HOLDING>). 1 88 Several of the prosecutor's comments
holding that the prosecutors question to the defendant about a prior unrelated offense was improper holding that the prosecutors request that the jury send a message to the community was improper in the guilt phase of the trial but was not so flagrantly improper as to constitute plain error holding that the prosecutors improper remarks referring to the defendants exercise of his constitutional right to a trial by jury was not plain error requiring reversal holding that a prosecutors entreaty in closing argument to convict a defendant in order to send a message and strike a blow to the drug problem was a single misstep so destructive to defendants right to a fair trial that it constitute reversible error holding that a prosecutors comment that jurors should impose the death penalty  in order to fulfill their societal duty was not improper because the prosecutor did not ask the jury to send a message to other potential murderers or robbers