armed. Those are machinations drawn up by the defense attorney.” At that point, Davis’s attorney objected that such a statement attacked Davis over the shoulders of defense counsel, violated his due process rights, and deprived him of his right to a fair trial. The trial court overruled Davis’s objection, and the prosecutor continued, “There’s no evidence to suggest that.” Viewing the prosecutor’s statement in the context of the entire argument, the comment was made in rebuttal, specifically in response to Davis’s claim that Latarsha was armed and had attacked Davis. See Mosley, 983 S.W.2d at 256; York v. State, No. PD-1753-06, 2008 WL 2677368, at *5 (Tex.Crim.App. July 2, 2008) (not designated for publication). By saying that the idea that Latarsha was armed was a “machinatio pp.1973) (<HOLDING>); Guy, 160 S.W.3d at 616-17 (holding
holding that prosecutors remarks that defense counsel was a zealot in the courtroom and thank god hes a defense attorney and not part of the government were improper holding prosecutors argument that defense counsel was manufacturing evidence and thus suborning perjury was improper holding prosecutors argument that defense counsels goal was to keep evidence from the jury was improper holding prosecutors statement that defendant and defense counsel were lying when they pleaded not guilty was improper holding that the prosecutors question to the defendant about a prior unrelated offense was improper