In People v. Blackington (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 1216, the defendant asserted that the prosecutor committed misconduct by "reading from a prior out-of-court statement made by a codefendant while the prosecutor was cross-examining the defendant." (Id. at p. 1219.) The prosecutor used the codefendant's out-of-court statements when asking the defendant whether he had made certain remarks to the codefendant, which tended to discredit the defendant's self-defense theory. (Id. at p. 1220.) The reviewing court found that the prosecutor's questions "went to the critical issue in the case," i.e. the self-defense theory; that the prosecutor reminded the jury of the statements during closing arguments; and that the defendant was denied his right to confront his codefendant, because his codefendant asserted his privilege not to testify. (Blackington, supra, 167 Cal.App.3d at p. 1223.) On appeal, the People argued that the jury likely did not misapply the disputed statements, because the jury returned a second degree murder conviction, rather than a conviction that reflected the defendant premeditated the murder. (Ibid.) The reviewing court disagreed because "the prosecutor's insinuations also suggested an intentional and therefore malicious killing rather than voluntary manslaughter." (Ibid.) Therefore, the reviewing court reversed the defendant's conviction. (Id. at p. 1224.) In Blackington, the reviewing court had reason to believe that the jury misapplied or misconstrued the codefendant's statements