How have the courts considered the burden of proof in the closing arguments?

Respondent also urges any potential juror confusion was alleviated by the parties' closing arguments. A reviewing court "must consider the arguments of counsel in assessing the probable impact of the instruction on the jury." (People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1202.) Respondent cites a portion of the prosecutor's argument in which he stated, "There is no dispute that [appellant] could have had those weapons as part of his official duties," then analyzed the evidence to show he did not. According to respondent, in arguing that the evidence showed appellant's possession of the machine gun and silencer were unlawful, the prosecutor accepted the burden of proving the statutory exception inapplicable. The prosecutor never expressly referred to the burden of proof in this context, however, and his argument that the evidence showed appellant did not possess the weapons within the terms of the exception would have been appropriate regardless of which party had the burden of proof on the issue.