weighed heavily in the State’s favor;” that the witness, upon whose failure to testify the State commented, “was not central to the case;” and that the State’s rebuttal comments were “merely in response to [defendants’] closing arguments” and were therefore proper. Id. at 655, 814 A.2d 1. As in Wilson, here, the State’s rebuttal argument did not impermissibly shift the burden of production of evidence to the defense. It was only responding to issues raised by defense counsel in closing argument. See Degren v. State, 352 Md. 400, 431, 722 A.2d 887 (1999)(“This Court has held that, under certain circumstances, a prosecutor’s argument during rebuttal and in response to comments made by the defense during its closing are proper.”); Booze v. State, 111 Md.App. 208, 224, 681 A.2d 534 (1996)(<HOLDING>); Blackwell v. State, 278 Md. 466, 481, 365
holding that defense counsel opened the door to response by prosecutor when he tried to turn defendants failure to testify to his advantage in closing argument holding that a prosecutor runs a risk of improperly striking at a defendant over the shoulder of counsel when the argument is made in terms of defense counsel personally and when the argument explicitly impugns defense counsels character holding that statute which permitted judge to deny defense closing in bench trial violated right to counsel and emphasizing the importance of argument by counsel in the factfinding process holding that defense counsel opened the door to the prosecutions questioning of the defendant about prior convictions when defense counsel asked a prosecution witness whether he was aware that the defendant was  a convicted felon holding that defense counsel opened the door to the states rebuttal remarks when defense counsel raised the issue in his closing argument