to lie directly fell within the scope of rebuttal argument under La.C.Cr.P. art. 774. “Argument on the credibility of a witness is proper where the facts bearing on the witness’ credibility appear in the record.” State v. Sayles, 395 So.2d 695, 697 (La.1981). In State v. Smith, 554 So.2d 676, 681 (La.1989) , the Court stated: [I]t has consistently been held to be reversible error for the prosecutor to express his belief in the guilt of the accused, or the credibility of a key witness, where doing so implies that he has additional knowledge or information about the case which has not been disclosed to the jury. State v. Kaufman, supra [304 So.2d 300 (La.1974)]; State v. Harrison, 367 So.2d 1 (La.1979); State v. Hamilton, 356 So.2d 1360 (La.1978); State v. May, 339 So.2d 764 (La.1976) (<HOLDING>). Mr. Celestine contends that the comments
holding the prosecutors statements were not an inappropriate comment on the defendants failure to testify but rather a comment on the defendants failure to present convincing evidence to support his defense holding that the prosecutors comment regarding the defendants failure to call a potential witness did not shift the burden of proof because it did not implicate the defendants fifth amendment right not to testify holding that comment by prosecutor in closing argument that defense counsel did not produce evidence of the defendants innocence was not a comment on the defendants failure to testify holding that the prosecutors reference to the nonexistence of mitigating evidence was not a comment on the defendants failure to testify recognizing the stated rule but finding that the prosecutors comment did not imply to the jury that he had personal knowledge of facts not presented to them indicating the defendants guilt