Agreed, it would be silly and counterproductive for defense to argue that she intentionally inflicted those stab wounds on a gunshot-wounded man, but my point was this in the minute entry:
"The State presented evidence that the victim was first shot in the right side of his head near his eye with a .25 caliber handgun and that the bullet lodged in his left cheek. This wound was not fatal and may or may not have rendered the victim unconcious."
So what evidence did the prosecution present to show the gunshot came first, and why did they change their opinion not long before trial? It seems an even stronger argument for cruelty if she disabled him first and stabbed him countless times afterwards, so why change the order? I just find it confusing, that's all.
The only reason the state changed it was because Juan asked Dr. Horn his medical opinion on the order of the wounds and Dr. Horn studied the autopsy and gave his opinion. So the state changed its opinion. The only reason sequencing even became important is because the defense tried to argue that because the shot came first then it was less cruel.
Juan's evidence is Horn's professional, medical opinion.