Appellant's videotaped confession, which was shown to the jury, also corroborates Appellant's confession that he was over 21 years of age. The foregoing, in conjunction with his statement admitting his age as 49 and his confession made to Detective Gallup of having sexual intercourse with K.R., supports the proposition that the corpus delicti was established. If the evidence shows corroborating circumstances which tend to prove the corpus delicti and correspond with circumstances related in the confession, both the circumstances and the confession are considered in determining whether the corpus delicti is proven. Based on the foregoing, Appellant's statement of his age was properly admitted and sufficient evidence was presented from which a reasonable jury could find Appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. While we agree that this is generally a correct statement of the law, we find no merit in Appellant's point.
Trial courts have broad discretion in the control of closing arguments.
Unless it clearly appears that the trial court abused its discretion its rulings will not be disturbed on appeal. Where a witness is equally available to both parties or unavailable to either party, the trial court should not permit counsel to argue to the jury during closing argument that an adverse inference arises from the state's failure to call the witness. Only when the missing witness is 'peculiarly available' to one party should the court consider whether the party's failure to call the witness supports the inference that the witness could have testified adversely to that party if called. Appellant was well aware of K.R.'s father because he and K.R. had stayed with Appellant during a period of time that K.R. and her father had no place to live. Furthermore, the record shows that K.R.'s father had been subpoenaed by Appellant to appear at trial and was endorsed as a witness by the state, however, neither party called K.R.'s father to the stand.