Defendant has not established whether the investigation was active when Deanna testified at his trial, and, if so, whether Deanna or the prosecution was aware of the investigation. Accordingly, we find that defendant has failed to establish a Brady violation, and that the trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion for new trial on this ground. As the panel noted in its original opinion, the comment was an improper comment on a defendant's failure to testify. Brownridge , supra at 299. However, this does not end our inquiry.
Defendant bears the burden to demonstrate that such an error resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
Id ., slip op at 10. Our review of the record satisfies us that this isolated comment, in an otherwise proper rebuttal argument, does not require reversal of defendant's convictions. IV Defendant next argues that reversal is required because the trial court admitted various hearsay declarations of Turner, the deceased arsonist. Again, we disagree. At issue here are Turner's alleged statements to Deanna and Scott that he was going to burn down defendant's house at defendant's request, and that defendant paid for the gasoline to start the fire and would later give Turner a share of the insurance proceeds.