Partially remaining silent held against defendant in Arizona

Arizona Supreme Court drives wedge in right to remain silent. However, I
don't know enough about trial procedure to understand if the prosecution
made errors here.

In 2019, in a parking lot outside a church service, a man saw the
pastor's son, asked him if he were the pastor's son, then shot at him
twice. Fortunately he missed both shots. He was taken into custody
by policy and Mirandized before being questioned. The first time, the
perpetrator invoked his right to remain silent. He was Mirandized and
questioned a second time; it's not clear if this was the same day or the
next day. He was inforned that he was going to jail. He offered to answer
some questions but not others. He claimed self defense,

Part of the problem is that the article Steve Lehto is commenting on
doesn't make everything clear about what happened at trial. The man
claimed self defense at trial and took the stand. Now, once he took the
stand, in cross examination, the prosecution was able to ask him about
questions of the police he had not answered. In closing arguments, the
prosecution reminded the jury how not answering those questions made him
look guilty.

This isn't clear to me. Despite having been Mirandized twoice, are the
police allowed to start a second round of questioning?

At trial, if he hadn't taken the stand, would the prosecution have been
allowed to raise the issue in closing arguments that he hadn't answered
certain police questions? Even before Miranda rights were significantly
narrowed, if the defendant takes the stand, was the prosecution
restricted from raising the fact that he answered some questions and not
others in cross examination and closing argument?

I'm not sure if the right to remain silent has been further narrowed or
not here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuTI4LeJkRk