Osgood argues that the prosecutor committed misconduct by arguing that there was no evidence before the jury that 5-fluoro-MDMB-PICA caused A.M. to act aggressively, when it was the prosecutor who had convinced the district court to exclude the testimony about the possible effects of 5-fluoro-MDMB-PICA. Osgood cites our decision in State v. Rule, 355 N.W.2d 496, 498 (Minn. App. 1984), as support for the proposition that making such an argument rises to the level of prosecutorial misconduct. In Rule, "[t]he prosecutor argued, over objection, that appellant had totally failed to show a history of bad blood between the parties that would justify self defense."

Such a result is impermissible. State v. Rule, 355 N.W.2d 496 (Minn. App. 1984); State v. Caron, 300 Minn. 123, 218 N.W.2d 197, 200 (1974); State v. Jefferson, 116 R.I. 124, 353 A.2d 190, 199 (1976); State v. Taylor, ___ R.I. ___, 425 A.2d 1231, 1234-36 (1981); State v. Posey, 269 S.C. 500, 238 S.E.2d 176 (1977). Accord Whitman, 429 A.2d at 209 (Roberts, J., concurring, joined by Godfrey, J.).

We have previously held that a district court properly refused to admit evidence that a victim terrorized the defendant six years before the incident, concluding that "an episode occurring . . . more than six years before, would not legitimately affect [the defendant's] apprehension here." State v. Rule, 355 N.W.2d 496, 498 (Minn. App. 1984).

[I]n cases involving unusually serious prosecutorial misconduct this court has required proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the misconduct was harmless before affirming. * * * On the other hand, in cases involving less serious prosecutorial misconduct this court has applied the test of whether the misconduct likely played a substantial part in influencing the jury to convict.State v. Rule, 355 N.W.2d 496, 498 (Minn.Ct.App. 1984) (quoting State v. Caron, 300 Minn. at 127-28, 218 N.W.2d at 200). We believe the lesser standard is applicable here.

Anderson bases his argument on a case which is distinguishable. In State v. Rule, 355 N.W.2d 496 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984), the prosecutor commented during closing argument on the defendant's failure to present evidence justifying his claim of self-defense. No curative instruction was given. This court reversed, stating: The standard for reviewing whether prosecutor misconduct is harmless depends on how egregious the conduct is.

In light of the strong evidence of Walker's guilt, we conclude that this misconduct did not likely play a substantial part in influencing the jury to convict. See State v. Caron, 300 Minn. 123, 128, 218 N.W.2d 197, 200 (1974); cf. State v. Rule, 355 N.W.2d 496, 498 (Minn.Ct.App. 1984). We therefore conclude that a new trial is not warranted.

Although not specifically stated by defense counsel, arguably the evidence supported appellant's claim he was reasonably put in apprehension of serious bodily harm. See State v. Rule, 355 N.W.2d 496 (Minn.Ct.App. 1984). The trial court's ruling was not erroneous.