death sentence be vacated. The trial court twice instructed the jury that the parties’ opening statements were not evidence. The State explains that the majority of the comments objected to by defendant constituted representations of what the State intended to, and in fact did, prove at the penalty phase trial and that, in any event, none of the comments made by the prosecutor in his opening statement require reversal. The scope of the State’s opening statement is limited to the “facts he intends in good faith to prove by competent evidence.” State v. Hipplewith, 33 N.J. 300, 309, 164 A.2d 481 (1960) (citing State v. Haines, 103 N.J.L. 534, 138 A. 203 (Sup.Ct.1927)); State v. Ernst, 32 N.J. 567, 577, 161 A.2d 511 (1960), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 943, 81 S.Ct. 464, 5 L.Ed.2d 374 (1961) (<HOLDING>); see also State v. Walden, 370 N.J.Super. 549,
holding that argument not raised in opening brief is waived holding witnesss prior consistent statement admissible where defense counsel implied in his opening statement that witness should not be believed because of the favorable consideration he received from the government in his plea bargaining agreement holding an argument not raised in opening brief is waived holding that in opening statements a prosecutor should as the trial court ruled limit himself to a statement of what he will prove and not anticipate his final argument holding argument waived for failure to raise it in opening brief