How have courts treated the use of a jigsaw puzzle analogy in an opening statement?

We find no comparable problems with the use a jigsaw puzzle analogy here. The People were not arguing what amount of evidence was sufficient to meet the reasonable doubt standard. Indeed, the People were not arguing at all, but only describing the purpose of an opening statement. "The purpose of the opening statement is to inform the jury of the evidence the prosecution intends to present, and the manner in which the evidence and reasonable inferences relate to the prosecution's theory of the case. [Citation.]" (People v. Millwee (1998) 18 Cal.4th 96, 137.) "The function of an opening statement is not

Page 7

only to inform the jury of the expected evidence, but also to prepare the jurors to follow the evidence and more readily discern its materiality, force, and meaning." (People v. Dennis (1998) 17 Cal.4th 468, 518.)