In People v. Coleman (1969) 71 Cal.2d 1159, a death penalty case, the Supreme Court addressed the defendant's contention that the prosecutor committed misconduct during the penalty phase of the jury trial by arguing the defendant's refusal to admit his guilt demonstrated his lack of remorse. (Coleman, supra, 71 Cal.2d at p. 1168.) Similarly, in People v. Miranda (1987) 44 Cal.3d 57--another death penalty case--the Supreme Court addressed the defendant's contention that the prosecutor committed misconduct during the penalty phase of the jury trial by stating: "I searched this case for factors in mitigation and I found none. I searched for elements of remorse and I found none." (Miranda, supra, 44 Cal.3d at p. 111.) In People v. Bell (1989) 49 Cal.3d 502, yet another capital case, the Supreme Court addressed the defendant's claim that the prosecutor committed misconduct during the penalty phase of the jury trial by stating, "I might add that nowhere during the course of this case has there been one scintilla of evidence of remorse for the events in question, neither in the guilt phase or penalty phase." (Bell, supra, 49 Cal.3d at pp. 548, 547.)