In Woodland v. State, 62 Md. App. 503, 490 A.2d 286 (1985), during voir dire of prospective jurors, the court identified, from a witness list provided by defense counsel, two individuals as potential character witnesses in the case, but neither witness was called by the defendant to testify at the trial. Woodland, 62 Md. App. at 505. Woodland testified in his own defense and denied any involvement in the crime. Id. On cross-examination, the prosecutor developed the name Abdula Mateen Matuking, a friend of Woodland's, who was incarcerated at the time of trial and was not called as a witness by the defense. Id. at 506. During rebuttal closing testimony, the prosecutor argued on several occasions that neither of the witnesses identified during voir dire, nor Matuking, had been called to testify. Id. at 506-07. Woodland's objections were overruled. After the court had instructed the jury, defense counsel requested that the court further instruct the jury that the defendant had no obligation to produce any evidence, but the court declined to give such an instruction. Id. at 508. Woodland argued on appeal that the trial court erred in allowing the State to argue the inference to be drawn from a missing witness when the State was not entitled to a missing witness instruction, and that that error, coupled with the court's failure to give appellant's requested jury instruction, shifted the burden of proof from the State to Woodland. Id. at 509. After reviewing the circumstances in which the missing witness rule applies, the Court concluded, inter alia, that even if the missing witness rule applied to witness and then fails to explain away incriminating circumstances, such failure may be character witnesses, the testimony of the two character witnesses would have been cumulative to the testimony of other character witnesses who testified at trial. Id. at 511. With respect to Matuking, we concluded that he was not a material witness whose testimony would elucidate the transaction and, as a result, the missing witness rule did not apply, the prosecution was not entitled to a missing witness instruction, and the prosecutor's argument was improper. Id. at 512, 514. The Court then considered whether the error was harmless, and concluded that the prosecutor's improper arguments, made during rebuttal closing argument, when Woodland had no opportunity to respond, had the effect of shifting the burden of proof to appellant. Id. at 516-17. As a result, it could not be said that the trial court's failure to give the requested instruction was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.