Opinion ID: 1730477
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 21

Heading: the griffin violation

Text: Carr also argues that the prosecutor improperly commented on his failure to testify at trial, thereby violating his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The challenged portion of the prosecutor's closing remarks follows: It would be unfair to have the State to prove the impossible, we don't have a video tape of this. And the defendant and his accomplice saw that there are no eyewitnesses in this case, there are none left. And this is capital murder, and of course it is important, and in a capital murder case, these people who kill their victims and kill their eyewitnesses cannot be set free. The proof is overwhelming. Don't let him get by with this. Don't let him get by with this. There are no eyewitnesses because of him, because of his accomplice. Carr claims this statement by the prosecution highlighted the fact that the only persons alive who could have testified as to what really happened were Carr and his accomplice. A defendant has a constitutional right not to take the witness stand. This right becomes meaningless if comment or insinuation can be made reflecting upon his failure to testify. Livingston v. State, 525 So.2d 1300, 1306 (Miss. 1988) (citations omitted). A prosecutor is prohibited, either by direct comment, insinuation or innuendo, from commenting on the defendant's failure to testify. However, what constitutes such prosecutorial wrongdoing is to be determined from the facts and circumstances of each case. Peterson v. State, 357 So.2d 113, 117 (Miss. 1978). Carr cites many of this Court's opinions that condemn prosecutorial comment on the defendant's failure to testify. However, the language this Court condemned in those cases was much more direct than in the case sub judice. See, e.g., Brown v. State, 340 So.2d 718, 721 (Miss. 1976) (It's undisputed. Nobody disputed his testimony.); Martin v. State, 200 Miss. 142, 26 So.2d 169, 171 (1946) (undisputed by any testimony); Lambert v. State, 199 Miss. 790, 25 So.2d 477 (1946) (Where is the testimony that he did not do it?). In the context of the facts and circumstances of the case sub judice, the prosecutor's closing argument did not comment on the failure of Carr to testify, nor did it include any such insinuation. Neither of the challenged portions of the prosecutor's closing argument violates Carr's constitutional rights. This assignment is without merit.