Does the stipulation admitting the elements of a hit and run as an evidentiary matter change the burden of proof?

Conversely, here, there was no stipulation admitting the elements of the hit and run as an evidentiary matter. Instead, the jury was instructed that the prosecution had to prove guilt on all counts beyond a reasonable doubt and that statements by counsel were not evidence. Thus, the prosecution was still required to present "competent, admissible evidence establishing the essential elements" of each charge. ( Florida v. Nixon (2004) 543 U.S. 175, 188, 125 S.Ct. 551, 160 L.Ed.2d 565.) The prosecutors remark during closing argument that appellants guilt on the hit and run was "obvious" and decision not to argue the evidence on that count did not change the burden of proof, nor did it limit the scope of the jurys role.