State argues that the phrase, "without explanation," in the tendered instruetion would mislead the jury because medical experts provided an explanation why the left dura had not been tested. The State directs us to Dr. Burrows' testimony that she did not see the dura on the left side of the brain and Dr. Moriarty's testimony that the dural edges can shrivel "to the point of appearing absent." Tran-seript at 766. Ray argues that "it is not up to the State to declare whether there is a reasonable explanation for the missing dura, as it is the sole province of the jury to make such a declaration." Appellant's Reply Brief at 9. We agree that it is the province of the jury to determine whether the explanation for the missing dura was reasonable. French v. State, 516 N.E.2d 40, 42 (Ind.1987) (<HOLDING>); see also Nelson v. Jimison, 634 N.E.2d 509,
holding witnesss business address even though witnesss middle name omitted enough information because party could locate witness holding that an ij need not credit an explanation for an inconsistency unless the explanation would compel a reasonable fact finder to do so holding that agents testimony as to witnesss identification was not hearsay holding that a witnesss testimony or an exhibit may not explicitly and directly contain an opinion as to a trial witnesss credibility holding that a jury could accept witnesss explanation as reasonable