In People v. Bonilla (2007) 41 Cal.4th 313, the trial court found a prosecutor's statement, to the effect a witness was required to testify truthfully under the terms of a plea agreement, were proper. "The prosecutor's challenged remarks all fall within this wide latitude. The prosecutor read the contents of Keyes's plea agreement during each opening argument, but it was permissible to advise the jury of this information: '"When an accomplice testifies for the prosecution, full disclosure of any agreement affecting the witness is required to ensure that the jury has a complete picture of the factors affecting the witness's credibility."' His remaining remarks about Keyes's credibility during his two closing arguments were equally permissible. They fall into three categories: arguments that Keyes should be believed because he had an incentive to tell the truth under the terms of his plea agreement; arguments he should be believed because, despite extensive cross-examination, his preliminary hearing and trial testimony were consistent; and arguments he should be believed because other evidence in the record corroborated his testimony. These were arguments from the evidence, suggesting reasonable inferences the jury could draw that might lead it to credit Keyes's testimony. They did not suggest the prosecutor had personal knowledge of facts outside the record showing Keyes was telling the truth. Nothing in the challenged remarks invited the jury to abdicate its responsibility to independently evaluate for itself whether Brad Keyes should be believed. There was no prosecutorial misconduct." (Id. at pp. 337-338.)