WATTS, J.

Following a trial held from March 3, 2009, to March 13, 2009, a jury in the Circuit Court for Charles County convicted Kevin Mark Warren, appellant, of one count of first-degree murder (felony murder), two counts of attempted first-degree murder, three counts of first-degree assault, three counts of attempted robbery with a dangerous weapon, three counts of use of a handgun in the commission of a crime, and one count of wearing, carrying, or transporting a handgun.1 See Md.Code Ann., Crim. Law Art. ("C.L.") § 2-201 (first-degree murder); C.L. § 2-205 (attempted first-degree murder); C.L. § 3-202 (first-degree assault); C.L. § 3-403 (attempted robbery with a dangerous weapon); C.L. § 4-204 (use of a handgun in the commission of a crime); C.L. § 4-203 (wearing, carrying, or transporting a handgun). On September 28, 2009, the circuit court sentenced appellant to life imprisonment for first-degree murder, two life sentences consecutive for attempted first-degree murder, and twenty years' imprisonment concurrent for use of a handgun in a crime of violence.2 Appellant noted an appeal raising three issues, which we rephrased and reordered into four:3

We answer all four questions in the negative and, therefore, affirm the judgments of conviction.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On September 17, 2007, appellant was indicted in connection with a robbery and shooting that occurred at Robinson Place in Waldorf, Maryland, that resulted in the death of Briona Porter, a thirteen-year-old girl.

Reading of Appellant's Miranda Rights

Prior to trial, appellant moved to suppress statements he made to Detective John Elliott at the Charles County Police Headquarters Building on July 6, 2007. On April 18, 2008, the circuit court conducted a hearing on the motion. As a witness for the State, Detective Elliott testified as follows:

The State questioned Detective Elliott, in pertinent part, as follows:

Detective Elliott testified that "[a]t about quarter to [one] in the morning [appellant] told me he didn't want to answer any more questions without a lawyer and I stopped questioning him." The circuit court ruled orally from the bench, granting the motion, in part, and denying it, in part, as follows:

Trial

At trial, as a witness for the State, Charlene Woodland testified that she owned and operated an ice cream truck as a business to help raise money to send her daughter to college. Woodland testified that, as of June 29, 2007, she had not yet operated the truck for ice cream sales during 2007. According to Woodland, that night, after getting the truck's generator fixed, she took the ice cream truck for a "test drive" and ended up at Robinson Place. Woodland's thirteen-year-old daughter, Briona, and Woodland's friend, Tanya Butler, accompanied her in the rear of the truck. Woodland testified that she stopped her ice cream truck at the end of Robinson Place to adjust her side mirrors. According to Woodland, she went in the back of the truck and saw a man, whom she identified at trial as appellant, with a gun in the window. Woodland testified that Butler said they were being robbed and told her to get the money box. Woodland retrieved the money box, shoved it at appellant, ran back to the driver's seat, and started driving away. Woodland testified that she heard gunshots, and that Briona screamed "mommy, he hit me." Woodland continued driving until she saw a law enforcement officer, who came to her assistance. Briona was taken from the scene by medical personnel and Woodland testified that this was the last time she saw Briona alive.

During appellant's cross-examination of Woodland, the following colloquy occurred:

During a bench conference, the prosecutor stated that appellant's counsel "has confused [Woodland] as to the date." The circuit court stated that: "We all know that she is confused. She is confused with dates." The cross-examination resumed, and the following occurred:

Later in the trial, after Woodland's testimony, the circuit court read the following stipulation to the jury:

Tanya Butler testified, as a witness for the State, that on the night of June 29, 2007, she accompanied Woodland and Briona in the truck to obtain gas for the generator. She and Briona were riding in the back of the ice cream truck that Woodland was driving. According to Butler, the gas station was closed and Woodland said she would show them a place "where there's a lot of kids where [she goes] to all the time." Woodland pulled into a "community" and stopped to fix the mirrors on the truck. After the truck was parked, a man, whom Butler identified at trial as appellant, came up to the truck, bought a bag of potato chips, walked away and came right back, pulled out a gun, and demanded money. According to Butler, as she responded to the man, Woodland approached the rear of the truck. Butler told Woodland the man was robbing them. Butler corroborated Woodland's testimony that she gave the man the money box, and the man shot at the truck as they drove away. Butler testified that Briona was shot in the back. Like Woodland, Butler testified that Briona said "mommy, he shot me, mommy." Butler testified that Briona was "like [her] niece."

As a witness for the State, Roy James Irby testified that while he and appellant were in the same unit at the county jail, appellant discussed the case with him. According to Irby, appellant told him that he had been out "partying, drinking and drugging" with Deante Duckett, and he (appellant) shot at an ice cream truck. Irby testified that appellant told him that "I guess you heard, I've got a body. And, I [Irby] said a body? You mean a child... a thirteen year old child. I said, why did you do it? And, he goes, because I can." Irby testified that appellant stated "and the ice cream truck came along. It pulled up. And, now he [appellant] was harassing them ... was harassing the people in the truck ... the women in the ice cream truck. And, apparently she didn't like what was going on. And, he said she said something and took off. Well, he the[n] demonstrated pulling out a gun and going, boom, boom, boom. And, the of course running."

As a witness for the State, Deante Duckett testified that, on June 29, 2007, he was near Robinson Place drinking alcohol with appellant, who was wearing a black and red Chicago Bulls baseball cap. According to Duckett, appellant went to an ice cream truck, bought a bag of potato chips, and went back to the truck. Duckett testified that he saw appellant sticking a gun into the truck and asking for money. Duckett testified he saw the truck accelerate and then heard gunshots.

Kevin Wise, appellant's father, testified as a witness for the State, that on July 1, 2007, he saw his son in Washington D.C. Appellant advised Wise that he was being accused of killing a child and was going to go to Charles County to turn himself in.

In his own defense, appellant testified that on June 29, 2007, he went to Robinson place to sell drugs. Appellant testified that he had been wearing a black and red Chicago Bulls hat. According to appellant, five other people, including Duckett, were present and were drinking with him. Appellant testified that he saw a truck coming up Robinson Place and thought that it was law enforcement. Appellant testified that he went to Oakley Drive and then heard gunshots coming from Robinson Place.

State's Cross-Examination of Appellant

During the State's cross-examination of appellant, the following colloquies occurred:

Jury Instructions

Before closing arguments, the circuit court instructed the jury, in pertinent part, as follows:

Closing Arguments

During the State's closing argument, the prosecutor stated:

Appellant did not object during the State's closing argument.

During appellant's closing argument, appellant's counsel argued that the State had not proven the occurrence of a robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. Appellant's counsel stated:

During the State's rebuttal closing argument, the prosecutor argued:

Appellant did not lodge any objections to the above comments made during the State's rebuttal closing argument.

DISCUSSION

I.

Appellant argues that the circuit court erred in admitting statements he made to law enforcement officers concerning his actions on the night of June 29, 2007. Specifically, appellant contends that the circuit court erred in holding that the State met its burden in proving that he waived his Miranda rights during a custodial interrogation.

In contrast, the State maintains that appellant "voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived his Miranda rights." The State contends that the prosecution need only show that "the suspect understood his Miranda rights, engaged in a course of conduct inconsistent with the assertion of those known rights, and was not subjected to any police coercion that overcame his will."

In Moore v. State, 422 Md. 516, 528, 30 A.3d 945 (2011), the Court of Appeals discussed the standard of review for Miranda issues:

In Winder v. State, 362 Md. 275, 765 A.2d 97 (2001), this Court stated:

(Most citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

In McIntyre v. State, 309 Md. 607, 614-15, 526 A.2d 30 (1987), the Court of Appeals explained that the State's burden of proof for proving that a defendant waived his or her Miranda rights is by a preponderance of the evidence:

(Citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

In Donaldson v. State, 200 Md.App. 581, 592, 28 A.3d 129 (2011), cert. denied, 424 Md. 629, 37 A.3d 318, 2012 Md. LEXIS 89 (2012), this Court explained that courts should consider the totality of the circumstances for Miranda issues:

(Citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

Miranda Waivers

In Logan v. State, 164 Md.App. 1, 41, 882 A.2d 330 (2005), aff'd, 394 Md. 378, 906 A.2d 374 (2006), this Court discussed what constitutes a waiver of the Miranda rights:

(Citations and internal quotation marks omitted) (most omissions and alterations in original).

In Ashford v. State, 147 Md.App. 1, 55-56, 807 A.2d 732, cert. denied, 372 Md. 430, 813 A.2d 257 (2002), we held that the defendant's Miranda waiver was voluntary because, in part, the defendant did not testify at the motion hearing. This Court stated:

Id. at 56, 807 A.2d 732.

In Berghuis v. Thompkins, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 2250, 2262, 176 L.Ed.2d 1098 (2010), the Supreme Court stated: "Where the prosecution shows that a Miranda warning was given and that it was understood by the accused, an accused's uncoerced statement establishes an implied waiver of the right to remain silent." In Berghuis, the Supreme Court held that the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights even though the defendant declined to sign a waiver and there was "conflicting evidence" of whether the defendant "verbally confirmed that he understood the rights listed on the form." Id. at 2256. The defendant was "[l]argely silent" during the interrogation before he responded "yes" to the question: "Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?" Id. at 2256-57. The Supreme Court noted that: (1) "there [was] no contention that [the defendant] did not understand his rights; and from this it follows that he knew what he gave up when he spoke"; (2) the defendant's "answer to [the detective]'s question ... is a `course of conduct indicating waiver' of the right to remain silent"; and (3) "there [was] no evidence that [the defendant]'s statement was coerced." Id. at 2262-63 (citations omitted); see also North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369, 370-71, 373, 99 S.Ct. 1755, 60 L.Ed.2d 286 (1979) (The Supreme Court held that the defendant waived his Miranda rights when law enforcement officers informed the defendant of his Miranda rights and the defendant replied: "I will talk to you but I am not signing any form.").

Returning to the instant case, we conclude based on the totality of the circumstances that appellant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his Miranda rights—as appellant was an adult, there was no evidence that he was under the influence of alcohol or drugs, and he indicated he understood the rights and made an uncoerced statement to the detectives. After Detective Elliott read appellant his Miranda rights and asked appellant if he understood his rights, appellant replied "yes." Appellant then made uncoerced statements in which he admitted that "he was there on the scene" of the shooting; appellant later asserted his right to an attorney. As in Berghuis, 130 S.Ct. at 2262-63, here, (1) "there is no contention that [appellant] did not understand his rights; and from this it follows that he knew what he gave up when he spoke" about being at the crime scene; (2) appellant's answer to Detective Elliott's questions constitutes "conduct indicating waiver of the right to remain silent"; and (3) Detective Elliott, the law enforcement officer responsible for the interrogation, testified that appellant was not coerced. According to Detective Elliott's testimony, which the circuit court found credible, appellant did not assert the right to an attorney until after answering questions, at which point Detective Elliott immediately ended the interview. Like the defendant in Ashford, 147 Md.App. at 56, 807 A.2d 732, appellant did not testify at the motion hearing, thus "ask[ing] us to guess what was in his head."

Given the testimony as to Detective Elliott's verbatim Miranda reading and appellant's response of "yes," at the motion hearing, the State demonstrated that a Miranda warning was given and that it was understood by appellant. As in Berghuis, 130 S.Ct. at 2262, appellant's "uncoerced statement establishe[d] an implied waiver of the right to remain silent." For the reasons discussed above, we conclude that the circuit court properly found that appellant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his Miranda rights.5

II.

Appellant contends that the circuit court erred in allowing the State to cross-examine him about statements he allegedly made before trial, admitting to the crimes that took place on June 29, 2007. Appellant argues that "the State used inadmissible hearsay declarations from unavailable witnesses in an attempt to impeach" him.6 Appellant maintains that the line of questioning by the State contained two levels of hearsay—the first level being appellant's alleged confession to out-of-court declarants and the second level being the communication by the out-of-court declarants to State investigators to convey the alleged confession. Appellant argues that this error violated his right to cross-examine the witnesses against him.

In contrast, the State maintains that the circuit court properly permitted the prosecutor to ask appellant whether he had confessed committing the crime to others. The State argues that "[a]sking a witness, and particularly the accused, to deny his or her own prior statement is a quintessential form of proper impeachment." The State contends that there was no error as the prosecution impeached appellant with his own prior statements, rather than the statements of another.

We review hearsay rulings de novo. Parker v. State, 408 Md. 428, 437, 970 A.2d 320 (2009). Maryland Rule 5-801(c) provides: "`Hearsay' is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted." Maryland Rule 5-802 provides: "Except as otherwise provided by these rules or permitted by applicable constitutional provisions or statutes, hearsay is not admissible." Maryland Rule 5-803(a)(1) provides: "The following [is] not excluded by the hearsay rule, even though the declarant is available as a witness: Statement by party-opponent. A statement that is offered against a party and is: The party's own statement, in either an individual or representative capacity[.]"

Witnesses may be questioned with their prior statements in two very distinct circumstances. Maryland Rule 5-802.1, entitled "Hearsay exceptions—Prior statements by witnesses," provides for admission of prior statements for their truth, as substantive evidence, as an exception to hearsay. The Rule provides, in pertinent part:

The Committee Note to Maryland Rule 5-802.1 provides: "This Rule does not affect the admissibility of prior inconsistent statements for impeachment purposes." (Emphasis added).

Maryland Rules 5-613 and 5-616 provide for the use of prior statements of witnesses for impeachment purposes. Maryland Rule 5-613, entitled "Prior statements of witnesses," provides:

Maryland Rule 5-616, entitled "Impeachment and rehabilitation—Generally," provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

(Emphasis added).

This Court has previously held that the State, in seeking to elicit a prior inconsistent statement from a witness, may, but is not required, to call the third party to whom the statement allegedly was made. In Snyder v. State, 104 Md.App. 533, 559, 657 A.2d 342, cert. denied, 340 Md. 216, 665 A.2d 1058 (1995), the State questioned a witness by asking: "Do you remember having a conversation with Bernie Smith in September of 1989 in Tuggy's Bar?" The witness denied having such a conversation, and the State followed up: "Mr. Smallwood, isn't it true that you told Bernie Smith in Tuggy's September of 1989 that when you picked up [appellant] that morning [appellant] was washing clothes and appeared to be nervous; didn't you tell Bernie Smith that?" Id. (alterations in original). The witness denied having that conversation and instead stated that Bernie Smith made up the entire conversation. Id. Upon review, this Court held as follows:

Snyder, 104 Md.App. at 560, 657 A.2d 342.

In Bell v. State, 114 Md.App. 480, 488-89, 691 A.2d 233 (1997), this Court reversed and remanded when the prosecutor cross-examined the defendant with a series of "would it surprise you"7 questions, comprised of another person's prior statements. In Bell, the prosecutor, in the midst of asking a series of "would it surprise you questions" asked: "How about this one that when you get back to the house, Cory Tart's house, after you have shot Chris and Bryan Maxwell you say `Those b[] aren't going to be calling us b[] anymore'?" Id. at 489, 691 A.2d 233. Finding error in the State's use of the "would it surprise you" questions,8 this Court stated:

Id. at 497, 691 A.2d 233 (omission in original).

Recently, in Sweetney v. State, 423 Md. 610, 623-24, 33 A.3d 435 (2011), the Court of Appeals discussed Bell, stating:

The Court stated, however, that:

Sweetney, 423 Md. at 624-25, 33 A.3d 435 (emphasis added).

Returning to the instant case, we perceive no error in the prosecutor's questions.9 Other than the prior testimony of Wise10—who testified at trial and whom appellant cross-examined—the only statements about which the prosecutor questioned appellant were inculpatory statements appellant allegedly made to Smothers and Marshall while in jail. Appellant contends that the circuit court erred in overruling his objection to the prosecutor's questions: "Remember telling [Smothers] how you stuck the gun up in there and started shooting in the ice cream truck?" and "You don't know Jonathan Marshall over in the jail? ... you never said anything to him about I had to try my hand; you know me; you know how I get it, right? Talking about this murder, right?" By these questions, however, the prosecutor was attempting to elicit a prior inconsistent statement from appellant, using the process set forth in Rule 5-613(a). As it turned out, appellant denied making any such statements to Smothers or Marshall, so the prosecutor did not elicit a prior inconsistent statement from him.

Maryland Rule 5-616(a)(1) explicitly allows a party to impeach a witness with that witness's prior inconsistent statements. Appellant's contention that "the State used inadmissible hearsay declarations from unavailable witnesses in an attempt to impeach" him is without merit, as the prosecutor only questioned appellant as to any out-of-court statements he might have made to Smothers or Marshall. Appellant urges that the prosecution not be able to question a defendant about out-of-court statements the defendant allegedly made to a third party, unless the prosecution calls that third party at trial-whether the third party be a law enforcement officer, a witness, or any other person. Appellant contends that the State having gained knowledge of appellant's statements derivatively, via a third party, renders the statements hearsay.

At oral argument, the State argued, in essence, that Maryland Rule 5-616 contemplates the use of a defendant's own prior inconsistent statements acquired by the prosecution from third parties to whom a defendant has made statements concerning a crime. We agree. To adopt appellant's contention would limit the prosecution to impeaching defendants, pursuant to Maryland Rule 5-616(a)(1), only with prior inconsistent statements defendants made to third parties when the third parties are called to testify at trial and the prior inconsistent statements are proven extrinsically, as opposed to intrinsically. This would abrogate the very basis and purpose of Maryland Rules 5-613(a) and 5-616, that is-to permit a party to examine a witness about an oral statement if the content and circumstances under which the statement is made, including the person to whom it was made, are disclosed, to attempt to elicit the statement directly from the witness himself.

In this case, the State questioned appellant concerning prior statements appellant allegedly made to Smothers and Marshall. Appellant was given an opportunity to admit, deny, or explain the statements. He denied making them. Thereafter, the State was permitted—although not required—to prove the statements through extrinsic evidence as contemplated by Maryland Rules 5-613 and 5-616. Here, the State chose to accept appellant's response and not call Smothers and Marshall to the stand as witnesses. That was proper and the State's choice to make. The result of that choice was that no prior inconsistent statement by appellant was proven, either intrinsically (through him) or extrinsically (through Smothers or Marshall). The circuit court did not err by permitting cross-examination of appellant as to his alleged out-of-court statements made to third parties.

We find no merit in appellant's contention that Bell is dispositive because the prosecutor in Bell, in the midst of asking a series of "would it surprise you questions," asked: "How about this one that when you get back to the house, Cory Tart's house, after you have shot Chris and Bryan Maxwell you say `Those b[] aren't going to be calling us b[] anymore?'" Id. at 489, 691 A.2d 233. The argument is unpersuasive as the error found by this Court in Bell concerned the use of the "would it surprise you" questions. In Bell, we identified the use of Buckler's out-of-court statements to cross-examine Bell as the impermissible form of questioning, not the question regarding Bell's out-of-court statement to Tart. Id. at 497, 691 A.2d 233. Nowhere in this Court's analysis in Bell, did we determine that the State is precluded from asking a defendant in a criminal case whether he made out-of-court inculpatory statements that a third party claims he made. It is axiomatic that the State will learn of the defendant's alleged out-of-court statements from other people. We shall not hold that where the defendant is confronted with his own alleged out-of-court inculpatory statements, which the State learned of from a third party, the State must call the third party as a witness at trial to establish that the out-of-court statements were made. If the defendant denies making the statements, and the third party is not called as a witness, the State is bound by that testimony, in that no prior inconsistent statement is proven through the defendant. If, however, the State wants to pursue calling the third party to testify that the defendant made the statement to him, the State can do so. It is not required to do so, however.11

III.

A.

Appellant contends that he was deprived of the right to a fair trial because the circuit court erred in allowing Woodland to testify erroneously that she told the prosecutor before the first trial that she could identify the shooter, before her testimony was corrected by a stipulation. Appellant argues that "[t]he State improperly relied on [Woodland's] perjured testimony to secure a conviction against the Appellant."

In contrast, the State maintains that it "consistently took the position that Woodland was either confused by [appellant's] counsel's cross-examination or simply mis-recollected the precise time." The State argues that "the prosecutor's closing argument never cited much less relied on Woodland's claim to have been able [to] identify [appellant] before the first trial, an assertion with which the prosecutor personally disagreed and, for that reason, agreed to the stipulation."

In Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 269, 79 S.Ct. 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1217 (1959), the Supreme Court explained that "it is established that a conviction obtained through use of false evidence, known to be such by representatives of the State, must fall under the Fourteenth Amendment[.] The same result obtains when the State, although not soliciting false evidence, allows it to go uncorrected when it appears." (Citations omitted).

We find no merit in appellant's allegation that the State relied on perjured testimony to secure the conviction. Rather than ever suggesting that Woodland committed perjury, the circuit court found that Woodland was simply "confused." As mandated by Napue, 360 U.S. at 269, 79 S.Ct. 1173, the circuit court did not "allow[ false testimony] to go uncorrected"; instead, the circuit court corrected any error by reading a stipulation that appellant's first trial was the first time that Woodland said that she was able to identify appellant. We, therefore, conclude that the State did not use "perjured" testimony and that the circuit court properly corrected the testimony.

B.

Appellant contends the State improperly questioned him in a manner that permitted a negative inference to be drawn from his invocation of the right to remain silent. Appellant argues that the prosecutor impermissibly referred to his right to remain silent by asking on cross-examination "is [this] the first time you've ever said anything publically to anybody about this meeting you had with Deante Duckett the next day, right?" Appellant argues that the State implied to the jury that he asserted his right to remain silent when asked about facts that would be "arguably inculpatory."

In contrast, the State responds that appellant was confronted during custodial interrogation with this direct accusation long before he invoked the right to remain silent, i.e. that the Detective asked appellant what occurred with Duckett well prior to his invocation of the right to remain silent.

In Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 615, 85 S.Ct. 1229, 14 L.Ed.2d 106 (1965), the Supreme Court explained that "the Fifth Amendment ... forbids either comment by the prosecution on the accused's silence or instructions by the court that such silence is evidence of guilt." In Griffin, the Supreme Court reversed where the prosecutor argued in closing that the victim "is dead, she can't tell you her side of the story. The defendant won't." Id. at 611-12, 85 S.Ct. 1229.

In Marshall v. State, 415 Md. 248, 261, 999 A.2d 1029 (2010), the Court of Appeals stated that "the federal constitutional right against compelled self-incrimination prohibits prosecutorial comment on the accused's silence or failure to testify." (Quoting Smith v. State, 367 Md. 348, 353, 787 A.2d 152 (2001)). The Court held that the prosecutor improperly argued in closing: "There are several pieces we don't have. We don't have [the defendant]'s thoughts[.]" Marshall, 415 Md. at 256-57, 999 A.2d 1029 (emphasis in original). Similarly, in Smith, 367 Md. at 352, 358, 787 A.2d 152, the Court of Appeals held that the prosecutor improperly argued in closing: "What explanation has been given to us by the defendant for having the leather goods? Zero, none." (Emphasis in original).

Returning to the instant case, we conclude that the issue is not preserved for appeal. The prosecutor cross-examined appellant about whether he had previously mentioned his meeting with Duckett. Appellant's counsel objected prior to a response being given to the question and the State rephrased the question to ask whether appellant told Detective Elliott about his meeting with Duckett, and, notably, appellant's counsel did not object. Appellant responded: "Yes, I told him." As with the hearsay issue discussed above, appellant fails either to acknowledge that appellant's counsel did not object or to ask this Court to review for plain error. Thus, this is a yet another instance of "non-preservation squared." Garner, 183 Md. App. at 152, 960 A.2d 649.

Alternatively, we are satisfied that the prosecutor's questions did not constitute an impermissible reference to appellant's right to remain silent. Appellant never answered the original question to which appellant's counsel lodged an objection. The circuit court properly instructed the jury that questions are not evidence, and that the jury could not speculate about possible answers. The circuit court allowed the prosecutor to rephrase the question and appellant's counsel offered no further objection. In response to the rephrased question, appellant responded that he had told Detective Elliott about Duckett. Thus, the testimony was not that appellant invoked his right to remain silent. Although the prosecutor asked whether appellant had previously spoken publicly about Duckett's alleged part in the offense or told Detective Elliott of Duckett's role, appellant failed to establish that the questions: (1) occurred after his request for an attorney, or (2) that in response to the questions, appellant invoked the right to remain silent. For the reasons stated above, we assign no error to the questions.

IV.

Appellant argues that the circuit court erred in allowing the prosecutor to make improper remarks during closing argument and rebuttal closing argument.

In contrast, the State maintains that by not objecting at trial appellant failed to preserve these issues for appellate review. The State argues that, even "[i]f reviewed for plain error, the circuit court soundly exercised its discretion to regulate the prosecutors' closing argument."

In McFadden v. State, 197 Md.App. 238, 255, 13 A.3d 68 (2011), this Court explained: "The regulation of argument rests within the sound discretion of the trial court." (Quoting Grandison v. State, 341 Md. 175, 224, 670 A.2d 398 (1995)). In Mitchell v. State, 408 Md. 368, 380, 969 A.2d 989 (2009), the Court of Appeals explained the latitude that counsel enjoys during closing arguments:

(Citation omitted). "Further, counsel may indulge in oratorical conceit or flourish and in illustrations and metaphorical allusions." McFadden, 197 Md.App. at 255, 13 A.3d 68 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted) (alteration in original).

A. Preservation

The record reveals that appellant failed to lodge any objection whatsoever during the State's closing argument and failed to object to the comments at issue in this appeal during the State's rebuttal closing argument. As such, any issue as to the prosecutor's remarks is not preserved for appellate review. Md. Rule 8-131(a) ("Ordinarily, the appellate court will not decide any other issue unless it plainly appears by the record to have been raised in or decided by the trial court."); Conner v. State, 34 Md.App. 124, 135, 366 A.2d 385 (1976) ("A failure to object [to a prosecutor's statements during closing arguments] and to request the Court's correction is a waiver of the contention for appellate review.").

Alternatively, we conclude the prosecutor's comments failed to rise to the extreme level of impropriety warranting reversal. In Spain v. State, 386 Md. 145, 159, 872 A.2d 25 (2005), the Court of Appeals discussed the factors that appellate courts may consider:

(Citing United States v. Melendez, 57 F.3d 238, 241 (2d Cir.1995)). In addition to the factors described above, appellate courts may consider whether a prosecutor's remark during closing arguments "was an isolated event that did not pervade the entire trial." Spain, 386 Md. at 159, 872 A.2d 25 (citation omitted).

B. Prosecutors' Remarks on Witnesses' Credibility

In Curry v. State, 54 Md.App. 250, 255, 258, 458 A.2d 474 (1983), this Court held that, despite the fact that the defendant failed to object, a prosecutor made improper remarks about witnesses' credibility. The prosecutor argued in closing:

(Citation omitted).

In Spain, 386 Md. at 159, 872 A.2d 25, the Court of Appeals held that the following remark during the State's closing argument, made over the defendant's objection, "was an isolated event that did not pervade the entire trial":

Id. at 151, 872 A.2d 25. The Court stated:

Id. at 155-56, 160, 872 A.2d 25 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

In contrast, in Sivells v. State, 196 Md.App. 254, 275-76, 280, 9 A.3d 123 (2010), cert. dismissed, 421 Md. 659, 28 A.3d 704 (2011), this Court held that, over the defendant's objection, a prosecutor made improper remarks about the credibility of law enforcement officers, who were the only witnesses against the defendant. The prosecutor had argued in closing: "Especially two veterans who have a lot to loose [sic] by making things up, pensions, credibility, livelihood. Everything to loose [sic] and nothing to gain. Not one thing to gain by it." Id. at 275, 9 A.3d 123. The prosecutor's remarks were improper because "there was no evidence to support the prosecutor's statement that the police would lose their pensions or their livelihood if they `made things up.'" Id. at 280, 9 A.3d 123.

In this case, the prosecutor's remarks—that Woodland "is not going to forget the face of the man who killed her only child," that "you cannot disbelieve" Woodland and Butler, and that Woodland and Butler "want to get it right"—were not improper. The prosecutor based the remarks on facts in evidence: Woodland lost her daughter, and Butler lost a girl she considered a "niece." Under the circumstances, the two eyewitnesses were likely to have stark, vivid memories of the event. This is commonsensical, and did not require "expert testimony" as appellant argued. The instant situation is unlike Sivells, 196 Md.App. at 280, 9 A.3d 123 a case in which the prosecutor argued a witness's credibility based on a fact not in evidence—that the law enforcement witness would lose his pension for lying on the stand.

Similarly, we conclude that the prosecutor's remark that the law enforcement witness would have had to "conspir[e] with the witnesses, [and] with me the State, all the police" was not improper. Again, the prosecutor made no mention of facts not in evidence and the remark was neither inflammatory nor depreciative of the defense.

C. Burden-Shifting During State's Closing Arguments

In Lawson v. State, 389 Md. 570, 596, 886 A.2d 876 (2005), the Court of Appeals held that the State improperly shifted the burden to the defendant by arguing that the defendant had offered no evidence that the victim had a motive to lie. The error merited a new trial because "[t]he primary evidence in this case was provided directly or indirectly by the victim's statements[.]" Id.

In contrast, in Wise v. State, 132 Md.App. 127, 139, 145, 751 A.2d 24, cert. denied, 360 Md. 276, 757 A.2d 811 (2000), this Court held that the prosecutor's remarks during closing argument were not improper when the prosecutor argued:

(Emphasis omitted). We held that the comments were proper because "[t]he prosecutor's closing argument was drawing attention to the fact that defense counsel had failed to fulfill his prediction in opening statement as to what he would develop at trial." Id. at 145, 751 A.2d 24.

In this case, it is apparent that the prosecutor's remark about appellant's hat did not improperly shift the burden of proof to appellant. Prior to closing arguments, the circuit court instructed the jury on the State's burden of proof, and the prosecutor prefaced his remarks with a reminder that appellant need not prove anything. Both appellant and Duckett testified that appellant had been wearing a Chicago Bulls hat on June 29, 2007. Given that appellant testified that he was wearing a Chicago Bulls hat at the scene on the night of the shooting, the prosecutor was entitled to bring up that the hat was neither found at the crime scene, nor in evidence at trial.

D. Appealing to Juries' Fears During State's Closing Arguments

In Lawson, 389 Md. at 596-97, 886 A.2d 876, the Court of Appeals held that the following remarks by the prosecutor during closing argument improperly appealed to the jury's fears:

"[A]lthough the prosecutor did not say `this defendant' is a monster and a child molester, it is clear that she intended to imply to the jury that he was that monster and child molester." Id. at 599, 886 A.2d 876.

In this case, the prosecutor's remarks were aimed at validating Irby's testimony about appellant having admitted that he shot a moving ice cream truck. After hearing all of the testimony, the jury was fully aware that the situation that the prosecutor hypothesized-a stopped ice cream truck surrounded by children-was not the circumstance under which the offense took place. Under the circumstances in this case, we discern neither an appeal to the jury's fears nor unfair prejudice.

E. Remarks on Appellant's Counsel and Appellant's Counsel's Arguments

We conclude the prosecutor's remarks as to appellant's counsel and appellant's counsel's arguments were not improper. The prosecutor's calling appellant's counsel's arguments "red herrings" was "oratorical conceit or flourish" that was well within the wide latitude granted to counsel in summation. McFadden, 197 Md.App. at 255, 13 A.3d 68 (citation omitted). As to the prosecutor's use of the word "idiot," the prosecutor made the following remark:

At oral argument, appellant's counsel contended that the use of the term "idiot" denigrated the role of defense counsel and was inappropriate. To begin, we note that appellant's counsel failed to lodge any objection to this remark. Appellant's counsel's failure to object undermines the argument that this remark was utterly improper and offensive, and it also causes the issue to not be preserved for appellate review. As noted by Judge Charles E. Moylan, Jr., speaking for this Court, the purpose of objections "to preserve the issue for appellate review is not an arbitrary one. It is supported by a solid rationale. At the most basic level, it recognizes that appellate courts do not range forth, like knights errant, seeking flaws in trials. Their quest is far more modest. They monitor a trial for the limited purpose of seeing if the trial judge committed error." Austin v. State, 90 Md.App. 254, 264-65, 600 A.2d 1142 (1992) (citations omitted).

In addition to the lack of an objection, reading the remark in context, the prosecutor argued that appellant's counsel's contention that no robbery occurred was "sound and fury." The prosecutor sought to rebut appellant's counsel's contention that no robbery took place, rather than argue that appellant's counsel was an "idiot."

During closing argument, appellant's counsel argued that: "I don't think you should be convinced that a robbery occurred as they said it occurred." "Now, that doesn't mean they weren't robbed. I just said to you that I don't ... I can't believe beyond a reasonable doubt that they [Woodland and Butler] were robbed, but rather none of us should because they're not telling the truth, the whole truth. They ... they go over there and they say that they stopped to fix the mirrors. Why aren't Charlene Woodland's fingerprints on the mirrors?"

During the State's rebuttal closing argument, the prosecutor stated: "I sit there and listen to [appellant's counsel's] arguments and the first thing that comes up to me is unbelievable that he can actually stand there and say the things that he did like this is no robbery.... A lot of sound and fury. I'm sure you've heard that phrase before. Well, that's actually from a quote.... the full quote is: It is a tale... and I'm quoting now ... it is a tale told by an idiot full of sound and fury signifying nothing." Whether a prosecutor has exceeded the limits of permissible comment depends upon the facts of each case. Spain, 386 Md. at 158, 872 A.2d 25. In this case, given the prosecutor's obvious attempt to rebut appellant's counsel's contention that no robbery occurred, we perceive no error warranting reversal.

F. Cumulative Prejudice from Improper Remarks During Closing Arguments

In this case, having examined the severity of the alleged improper remarks and determined that the remarks in isolation do not warrant reversal, we conclude that the remarks by the prosecutor do not cumulatively rise to the level of prejudice requiring reversal. The prosecutor's remarks, whether taken individually or as a whole, were not so improper that they tainted the results of a trial in which there were three eyewitnesses against appellant-Woodland, Butler, and Deante Duckett— as well as the witness—Irby—who testified that appellant admitted shooting at the ice cream truck. As to the weight of the evidence against the accused, in our view, this was a strong case in which the evidence weighed heavily in the State's favor. This was not a close case, of the "he said, she said" variety that turned primarily on the credibility of one witness.

Any prejudicial effect of the State's remarks was diminished by the instructions given by the circuit court prior to closing argument, the number of witnesses, and the overall weight of the evidence against appellant. As in Spain, 386 Md. at 160, 872 A.2d 25, before closing arguments, the circuit court properly instructed the jury that closing arguments were not evidence. Consequently, upon balancing the factors identified in Spain, we are satisfied that the State's remarks in relation to the totality of the evidence did not rise to the level of having misled or influenced the jury to the prejudice of the defendant, and do not constitute plain error.

JUDGMENTS OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR CHARLES COUNTY AFFIRMED. COSTS TO BE PAID BY APPELLANT.