Thus, Petitioner asserts that “there is a reasonable possibility that these errors might have contributed to the conviction,” citing State v. Maluia, 107 Hawaii 20, 24,108 P.3d 974, 978 (2005), because “[Respondent] had the burden of disproving the EMED defense beyond a reasonable doubt..: VII. It is established that “[a]rguments of counsel which misstate the law are subject to objection and to correction by the court.” State v. Mahoe, 89 Hawai'i 284, 290, 972 P.2d 287, 293 (1998) (citing Royde v. California, 494 U.S. 370, 110 S.Ct. 1190, 108 L.Ed.2d 316 (1990)) (emphasis omitted). Improper statements by Respondent may serve as grounds for vacating a judgment of conviction and remanding the case for a new trial. See State v. Wakisaka, 102 Hawai'i 504, 516, 78 P.3d 317, 329 (2003) (<HOLDING>); State v. Rogan, 91 Hawai'i 405, 415, 984 P.2d
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 prosecutors comment on defendants failure to testify constituted plain error affecting the defendants substantial rights 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 failure to object to prosecutors comment on defendants failure to testify preserved nothing for appellate review holding that the prosecutors reference to the nonexistence of mitigating evidence was not a comment on the defendants failure to testify