How have the courts treated the burden of proof in cases where the prosecutor said that "what happened is clear" and that the jury did not need any law or instructions from the judge to determine who did it?

Defendant contends that the prosecutor undermined the burden of proof by stating that "what happened is clear," and that therefore the jury did not need "any law" or "any instructions from the judge" to determine "who did it," that is, wielded the machete. The contention is forfeited based on defense counsel's failure to object (People v. Fuiava, supra, 53 Cal.4th at pp. 670-680), and regardless, we fail to see how this comment in any way undermined the burden of proof. As defendant concedes, the issue of identity was not disputed.