In a closely balanced drug case, where the defense argued that it was unconscionable that the State had failed to have certain items tested for fingerprints, the 4th District Appellate court stated that the defense can never open the door so as to shift the burden of proof, and therefore, the State’s rebuttal argument that it was unconscionable for the defense not to have submitted the fingerprints for analysis, was reversible error. “Further, by overruling defendant’s objections to these type of comments by the State, the trial court was in effect sanctioning an erroneous burden of proof before the eyes of the jury,” Justice Cook wrote. People v. Aaron Beasley, 4th District, 8/22/08. B. E. M.