person or if there was anyone that would say, anyone at all other than the defendant, that there was a black truck involved in this wreck, they would have brought them in here and they would have had them testify for you. Defense: Your Honor, burden of proof is on the State. We don’t have to bring any evidence. He’s shifting the burden. Court: Overruled. Go ahead. (Emphasis added.) This is not a case in which appellant is objecting that the prosecutor’s jury argument was a comment on her failure to testify, because in this case, appellant did testify. When a prosecutor’s jury argument can reasonably be construed to refer to appellant’s failure to produce evidence other than her own testimony, the comment is not improper. Patrick v. State, 906 S.W.2d 481, 490-91 (Tex.Crim.App.1995) (<HOLDING>); see also Thomas v. State, 688 S.W.2d 481, 483
holding that a defendant bears the burden of objecting to an allegedly improper closing argument at the time the improper argument is made holding prosecutors isolated argument referencing punishment was not improper because it was responsive to evidence in the record and was not intended to inflame the jury holding prosecutors argument that defense counsels goal was to keep evidence from the jury was improper holding the prosecutors argument if it was there they can bring it to you was not an improper jury argument holding that argument regarding victim of prior offense was improper