¶1 concurring. I concur in the reversal of the judgnent but do not believe that error can be predicated upon openng statements of what the state expects to prove, and upon ühich there is a failure of proof. However, inflammatory argument has no place in an opening statement.
¶2 In my opinion, the testimony of the defense witness Brad-3y relating to Pickett’s proclivity to use a knife was too remote i time and place, in the absence of knowledge thereof on the art of the defendant at the time of the shooting, to be admisible. The erroneous admission of this testimony afforded no asis, however, for the admission on rebuttal of the state’s evience relating to the conduct of the defendant during the lorning and of admonishments of the witnesses directed to the efendant. It may be observed that the defendant had testified lat he had not touched the gun since the hunting season and not ntil Pickett had threatened him the afternoon of the shooting, 'he witness Porter’s testimony that the defendant had pos *316 session of the gun some time before the shooting was proper evidence in rebuttal.