by the evidence will ordinarily constitute reversible error if there has been an affirmative showing of bad faith and manifest prejudice." People v. Wallace, 97 P.3d 262, 269 (Colo.App.2004). 162 Final argument may properly include the facts in evidence and any reasonable inferences from those facts. Domingo-Gomez v. People, 125 P.3d 1043, 1047 (Colo.2005), People v. Beilke, 232 P.3d 146, 154 (Colo.App.2009). In closing argument, counsel may employ rhetorical devices and engage in oratorical embellishment and metaphorical nuance, so long as he or she does not thereby induce the jury to- determine guilt on the basis of passion or prejudice, attempt to inject irrelevant issues into the case, or accomplish some other improper purpose. People v. Allee, 77 P.3d 831, 837 (Colo.App.2003) (<HOLDING>) ¶63 "A prosecutor is afforded considerable
holding that state prosecutors agreements with defendant not binding on federal prosecutors holding that prosecutors have absolute immunity holding that the outcome of the case could have been different if the trial court had imposed the appropriate burden holding that the prosecutors statement that the case could have been a made for tv movie was a proper oratoncal embelhshment holding that trial counsel was not ineffective when he failed to introduce defendants prior consistent statement statement was not admissible because it was made after defendant had been arrested clearly not a time when the effect of the statement could not have been foreseen