specially concurring:
I agree that appellant’s conviction should be affirmed but choose to comment on the improper comments made by the prosecutor. The prosecutor stated that appellant’s testimony made “him a liar.” Clearly, the comment was improper; however, no objection was made by defense counsel, therefore we may review only for fundamental error. Tart v. State, 634 P.2d 750 (Okla.Crim.App.1981).
This Court has repeatedly held that although the prosecutor may comment on the evidence and draw logical inferences therefrom, he cannot inject his personal opinion or beliefs by speculating as to the truthfulness of the defendant. Henderson v. State, 695 P.2d 879, 883 (Okla.Crim.App.1985); Lewis v. State, 569 P.2d 486, 489 (Okla.Crim.App.1977). While the comments made in the present case were improper, I cannot say that they rose to the level of fundamental error. Accordingly, I concur.