In People v. Mendibles (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 1277, defense counsel improperly implied during closing argument that the prosecutor had influenced the victims' testimony by coaching them, and the victims had lied throughout the trial. In response, the prosecutor attempted to explain to the jury that there had not been any improper coaching of any witness. Rather, the court had ruled that certain topics were not to be mentioned on the witness stand and this was conveyed to the witnesses. The defendant complained that such comments by the prosecutor constituted prosecutorial misconduct because the prosecutor informed the jury by innuendo that the court had kept evidence of the defendant's guilt from the jury. (Id. at pp. 1312-1313.) The court concluded there was no prosecutorial misconduct because the prosecutor's comments constituted appropriate rebuttal argument. (Mendibles, supra, 199 Cal.App.3d at p. 1313.) The court stated that, "Given the highly inflammatory implications of defense counsel's argument, unequivocally impugning the integrity of the prosecution, the above rebuttal remarks were 'fairly responsive to argument of defense counsel and were based on the record.' In these circumstances, the prosecutor 'cannot be charged with misconduct if his comments only spill over somewhat into a forbidden area; the departure from propriety must be a substantial one.'" (Ibid.) In determining whether there has been a substantial departure from propriety, the key consideration "is whether there is any undue advantage to the People or disadvantage to the defendant. This is determined by inquiring whether the response was intended or formed to invite the jury to draw adverse inferences, was unduly emphasized and related to central or peripheral areas of determinant factors concerning the defendant's guilt or innocence." (Mendibles, supra, 199 Cal.App.3d at p. 1313.)