Does the prosecution cross the line in its argument about the burden of proof?

The lines in this area of the law are admittedly fine, but we do not believe the specific comments made by the prosecution here crossed the line into improper argument. The prosecution was obviously cognizant of the need to avoid suggesting the defense had a burden of proving innocence, and the prosecution repeatedly and explicitly framed its argument not in terms of the defense carrying a burden of proof, but as a comment on the state of the evidence at the conclusion of trial. Put more concretely, while the prosecution expressly conceded it was "the People's burden to prove this case to you beyond a reasonable doubt" and implicitly conceded there was no forensic evidence tying the shoe or knife to defendant, the prosecution fairly noted there was also no forensic evidence indicating the shoe and the knife were not connected to defendant either. Thus, while we are not critical of the trial court for sustaining the defense objectionsthe comments were close to the line and caution was warrantedthe challenged portion of the prosecution's argument was not misconduct in our view. (See, e.g., People v. Cook (2006) 39 Cal.4th 566, 607 [prosecution's question to expert witness about whether the defense could have tested the bullets removed from murder victims was not improper burden shifting because "[p]ointing out that contested physical evidence could be retested did not shift the burden of proof"].)