Stimson, a karate expert, is charged with "assault with a deadly weapon, to wit, his hands," arising out of an attack on Boyer. Under the law of the jurisdiction, whether a weapon is deadly under the statute is an adjudicative fact for the jury. But on request by the prosecutor, the court instructs the jury under the jurisdiction's identical counterpart to FRE 201(f) that "you may, but are not required to find, that the hands of karate expert p. 766 qualify as a deadly weapon under the statute." In his case-in-chief, Stimson calls Osaga, a fellow karate expert, who will testify that karate is not a dangerous sport and that the hands of a karate expert are not a deadly weapon. The prosecutor objects, arguing that rebutting evidence cannot be presented with respect to a fact that has already been judicially noticed. What ruling?Explain