of defendant’s interrogation and could draw their own inferences from the record as to whether those conditions would cause defendant to confess. The State’s argument concerning those conditions was proper in light of that evidence. However, it was improper for the State to ask the jurors to place themselves in defendant’s position and determine whether they would confess under those circumstances. The prosecutor’s comment was irrelevant and had no purpose other than to distract the jurors from their duty — assessing the evidence in the case. See People v. Johnson, 208 Ill. 2d 53, 83-84 (2003). Even though the remark was improper, we do not find that the error was so serious that the second prong of the plain-error test is satisfied. See People v. Alvine, 173 Ill. 2d 273, 292 (1996) (<HOLDING>). The jury was instructed to base its decision
holding that plainerror exception did not apply where prosecutor asked jury to assume the role of the victim in closing argument holding that it was harmless error when the prosecutor focused on a single incident in closing argument holding that it is improper for a prosecutor to assume the existence of prejudicial facts not in evidence holding that any error was harmless when prosecutor stated in closing argument that the state was electing a specific incident the victim had testified to with particularity holding it was improper for prosecutor to inject personal opinion in statements to the jury in closing argument