see Todd, 2007 UT App 349, ¶ 21, 173 P.3d 170, and disproved each affirmative defense beyond a reasonable doubt, see State v. Drej, 2010 UT 35, ¶ 15, 233 P.3d 476. It must not be based on a desire to punish the defendant because of the victim's tragic loss of "his ability to run, his ability to bike, his ability to walk his daughter down the aisle." 2. Personal attack on defense counsel [ 54 Campos also challenges several statements where the prosecutor compared the defense's theory of the case to a red herring and suggested that defense counsel was being deceitful. The State responds that the prosecutor's statements " 'were not directed at defense counsel personally, but rather were comments on the defense theories"" (Quoting State v. Norton, 151 Idaho 176, 254 P.3d 77, 90 (App.2011) (<HOLDING>).) We agree with Campos that the statements in
holding prosecutors argument that defense counsels goal was to keep evidence from the jury was improper recognizing that defendant must show 1 that counsels performance was deficient and 2 that counsels errors prejudiced the defense holding instruction to jury that counsels arguments were not evidence did not negatej the prejudicial effect of the prosecutors inflammatory comments holding that a prosecutors description of some of defense counsels arguments as red herrings and smoke and mirrors was not inappropriate holding that the prosecutors description of the defendant as a demon did not deprive him of a fair trial