Is anyone troubled by the finding that in sustaining a "speaking objection" the trial court is somehow instructing the jury in accordance with the voiced objection? To my way of thinking, the defense argument was improper since it relied on the "presumption" alone as a basis to attack the credibility of the state's evidence. In other words, the argument was misleading and likely to confuse the jury. Unfortunately, the prosecutor did not object on that basis. But, is a favorable ruling by the court necessarily an adoption of the language of the objection as lodged? Is that apparent to the jury? I find it hard to say the prosecutor commits constitutional error by misstating an objection.