court rule for thirty one b and nd the prosecutor made improper statements during opening statements and closing arguments are the facts not in evidence for thirty one dollars b requires that the trial court ask attenti jurors whether they both understand and if you have the four fundamental concepts of the law here the judge did ask the jurors about of a understood but he instead of asking them about acceptance he asked whether they took issue  if i may go back to justice chocks question about what the difference is between take issue and exams take issue is ambiguous and it is subject to different interpretations what excuse me but the last paragraph of that particular section says the courts of method of inquiry shall provide each juror an opportunity to respond to specific questions concerning the principle set out in th section it doesn't say in fact it's just the court's method and specific questions it doesn't say the language that set forth up so that seems to give the court some opportunity that year there is actually no way that the prosecutor herself could have known where that bullet came from and prefer anting those statements as perhaps rebuttal invades the province of the jury who had just the same opportunity there is a line also between reasonable inference and mere speculation and that is what we're dealing with as far as the prosecutor statement in opening and closing moving out to the close the balance evidence paul versions of what happened here the defendant did refute the state's version and the only witness actually present was mr harris the rest of the witnesses had no personal knowledge of what occurred on that day the defendant on that when he testified it said that he did not have anything in his hands and that the object he seen holding as he's going over the neighbor's fence is a b b gun and that is actually supported by the evidence in the case that shows he was in possession of a b b gun that looks strikingly similar to what he was holding in that video moreover on the very day of the incident the officers found another pneumatic got shot residue really there are three ways that gunshot residue can be found on a person and it doesn't necessarily always mean if that person fired a gun the defendant could have been in the environment where something was fired  there were there were varying feeds and i do not recall off the top of my head the exact amount he was when he st started possibly about twelve feet and need expert in th discuss it with mr harris but then later on he said that he didn't see it until after the grand jury so it does call into question and create a credibility if your owners have norther questions regarding the close the balance i don't want the last last argument and that is because a police officer who had no personal knowledge of the underlying incident invaded the province of the jury testify to there's obvious muzzle flashes you see a light there are things that can be seen which she can perhaps comment on but as far as narrating and insinuating this is obvious and completely indicative that mr harris shot a gun is again invading the province of the jury he was in no better position than the jurors to say that there was a muzzle flash the muzzle flash that he says he sees is and the kind of smoke that has no flash so fur that testimony to be admitted it should have been admitted by somebody who had specialized knowledge as an expert wasn't an expert but is is it reasonable to believe there are officers i have had experience either with you know gunshot which talks about what a witness may testify to if they are not testifying as an expert and they may form opinions or in france says and those are those opinions or inferences are limited to those rationally beside a perception of the witness which the th district discussed in mister b s on the supreme court's case and thompson saying that it's the perception of the actual video that's being watched not personal knowledge of the event itself so it doesn't do justice to videos for itself that is why we go on to be it is helpful to clear understanding of the witnesses testimony or at the determination of a fact an issue the facts an issue was did the defendant fire and illegal firearm and that is what this is hoping to marry even in the shoulder environment the court found it was helpful to hear to know what was going on there we may not have one hundred people during a demonstration we had four actors and a very quick amount of time i know i reviewed the video over and over and over again and it was difficult to see what was going on inside of that based on the distance of the quality so it wasn't helpful to have a clear understanding of whether he didn't view it yes your honor and it is not based on scientific technical or other specialized knowledge that is the rd element of the rule and the people maintain that a gun being fired getting a flash of light or smoke coming out of the gun so in this case it was helpful and the officer had to slow down the video and zoom into the video and order to see what was the best he could what was going on inside of that vehicle and there was an accident that occurred it was helpful in understanding that and the jury was free to weigh this happens and reject it and in comparison to the other muzzle flashes which defend indicative of a gun being fired even if this officer was not qualified as an expert was he qualified is two years of service and you know use of guns seeing guns used anything of that nature i believe they  judges could say i understand and accept and move on through the court make your transom ok it would make my job very easier and i don't disagree that that is what i would consider something simple to a we have the shell casing found near the car that was different than all the other shell casings we did have one witness who testified that there were up to seven gunshots heard we have the gunshot residue on the defendant's hands and officer testified that when he measured the seconds spots seven places in the parking lot that he was twenty two feet and four inches from the car he admitted during his grand jury testimony that he was sound of the gun being fired and what appeared to be a gun in his hand shortly after he may have denied it and he may have claimed it was a b b gun but it is all part of the certain central chain of the evidence that supports that there was a con that was fired within that video as well as the record which could be the army here tend to be internally inconsistent with each other in one instance complaining that the officer testified she what he saw on the video and other complaining that nobody testified to what was seen in the video and the prosecutor during the stat but there was an extremity that took place and the entirety of the appeared to look like and think there's nothing indicative that it had been sitting there forever as opposed to being part of this firing here i mean it's just says with no guns recovered it's just like when do we know for certain that the other six shots came from the gun that was fired that day or were they also sitting there before it happened so we could be the one thing up to know for certain it's going to raise its beyond a reasonable doubt it is not beyond that they have the cameras pacifically because it was a crime area that they were concerned about and so it could support the fact that they have nine millimeter would have been there before this particular incident it could support that but bullet actually enter the defendant slavery was it just degrees because did we have a recovery of a forty five caliber from his leg and i don't remember seeing i don't remember i  choose instances where the attacker saying that the prosecutor commented on the credibility of the experts and while it is improper to personally vouch for credibility it is not to show it was not a b b gun has no motive no bias and no interest in this case going directly into discussing the forensic scientists having no did not care about the outcome so it's relating to record relating to their lack of motive bias or interest and they're basing it on scientific evidence and facts and that is why they're not lying that was not a personal bashing that was a discussion of their credibility and why they can believe it was credibility as a whole as well as i mentioned earlier the inference was from the video the video was properly noted they are not complaining about it's a mission which means it was evident that was presented at trial referenced actually goes to be narrators identification of a defendant in that video whereas here there is no question as to identification so what the officer is seeing is exactly the same things as the jury their court he is in no better position than the jury to make those assessments be event of smoke that was seen in the vehicle again as i said before is not necessarily within the common knowledge of every juror perhaps it's within the common knowledge of the average gun owner but a muzzle flash that contains no flash would not necessarily be within the common knowledge of every  on improper play opinion whereas the ricochet was a theory concocted by the prosecutor on rebuttal be defended had no opportunity to respond be defend had no opportunity to plant and so i'll be prosecutor presented that as fact which again david the problems of the jury and then as to the officer's testimony the fact that he was in a position of authority