In this DWI case, the trial court did not err by failing to intervene ex mero motu to the State’s closing arguments. The defendant argued that certain remarks were improper because they speculated that he had driven impaired on other occasions; were sarcastic and provoked a sense of class envy; tended to shift the burden of proof to the defendant; and indicated that the defendant’s witnesses were hypocrites and liars. Without discussing the specific remarks, the court held that “although the State pushed the bounds of impropriety” the remarks were not so grossly improper as to require intervention ex mero motu.