In People v. Varona (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 566, the issue involved an evidentiary ruling in which the trial court excluded admissible evidence proffered by the defense in a sexual-offense case. The evidence of the victim's history of prostitution was critical to the jury's evaluation of her credibility. On appeal, the reviewing court found misconduct because the prosecutor argued to the jury that there was no proof the victim was a prostitute, even though the defense had been ready and willing to produce such evidence. Moreover, the prosecutor had compounded the issue by actually arguing that the woman was not a prostitute, despite having seen the official records and knowing he was arguing a falsehood. (Id. at p. 570.)