these questions. ¶ 71 During closing argument, the prosecutor addressed the credibility of Gina’s identification of Forde as follows: What mother would not want to sit up on the stand after you have heard the police had arrested a woman accused of murdering your daughter and say, absolutely that is the woman. But she didn’t do that. What she told you was, and I submit to you honestly, was, no, I just can’t tell you, I don’t know her. I think those were Gina’s words. I don’t know her. I can’t tell you that’s the same person, but she looks just like that person. Forde argues that by using the phrase, “I submit to you honestly,” the prosecutor improperly vouched for Gina by placing the prestige of the State behind her. See State v. Vincent, 159 Ariz. 418, 423, 768 P.2d 150, 155 (1989) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 72 We agree with Forde that the prosecutor
holding that a prosecutor commits improper vouching by placing the prestige of the government behind a witness holding that it is not vouching for prosecutor to say that jury should come to believe on the evidence that the events occurred the way the governments witnesses said they did holding that the district court abused its discretion in denying the defendants timely motion for the substitution of the participating prosecutor in order to permit the defense to call the prosecutor as a witness holding that the government is no longer bound by its obligations under a plea agreement when a defendant commits a material breach holding that it is improper to ask a witness to comment on the credibility of another witness