Cited by

(holding that a closing argument must be considered as a whole) and concluded that the 7 district court had not abused its discretion in denying postconviction relief.

(stating that the prosecutor’s argument “must be taken as a whole to determine if it provides a basis for reversal”).

(finding no prejudice to defendant when the remarks are isolated and not representative of closing argument in its entirety); (stating that the prosecutor’s argument must be evaluated as a whole, without solitary comments being taken out of context).

numerous pages of transcript, the trial court may deny the request.”

(failure to object presumed to indicate defense counsel found nothing improper).

To determine whether evidence is sufficient for a conviction we decide “whether the jury could reasonably have found [guilt] viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict.”

(violation of discovery rules not grounds for mistrial where little or no prejudice resulted).

In deciding whether the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction, the only issue is “whether the jury could reasonably have found [Cichon] guilty viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict.”

DISCUSSION I In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, this court must determine “whether the jury could reasonably have found the defendant guilty viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict.”

The effect of this last comment was tempered by the prosecutor’s remark immediately following: “That’s for you to judge yourselves * * With regard to all three challenged comments, we note also that defense counsel failed to object during the closing argument itself, thus implying “that the defense found nothing improper in the argument.”