In People v. Bahoda, 448 Mich 261, 266-267; 531 NW2d 659 (1995), the Supreme Court reviewed a prosecutorial misconduct issue, saying: Generally, "prosecutors are accorded great latitude regarding their arguments and conduct." They are "free to argue the evidence and all reasonable inferences from the evidence as it relates to their theory of the case." Nevertheless, prosecutors should not resort to civic duty arguments that appeal to the fears and prejudices of jury members or express their personal opinions of a defendant's guilt, and must refrain from denigrating a defendant with intemperate and prejudicial remarks. Such comments during closing argument will be reviewed in context to determine whether they constitute error requiring reversal. In Bahoda, the prosecution referred to the size of a particular drug organization and the pervasive nature of the drug problem. Id. at 283-284. The Court found these references to be permissible where the comments were reasonable inferences from the evidence presented at trial, given that Bahoda was facing drug charges and there was testimony regarding the drug trade. Id.