Opinion ID: 1518504
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: did the prosecution improperly comment on the appellant's right to remain silent?

Text: Appellant owned a .22 caliber revolver which had disappeared after the homicide. In his closing argument, the prosecutor enumerated evidence which he felt pointed to appellant's guilt. He stated: No. 4: George Nugent, Smith & Wesson,.22    After Corky Kelly comes out of the ground, that .22 caliber has vanished into thin air. Now, I'll say again: I wonder what would happen if there was a drain plug out in the Ohio River. Appellant argues that this statement constituted a comment on his failure to testify. He claims the message given to the jury was that appellant owned a pistol and failed to testify, thus offering the jury an explanation of its disappearance. This argument, at best, is tenuous. The remark is ambiguous and indirect but should not be construed in its most damaging meaning. Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637, 94 S.Ct. 1868, 40 L.Ed.2d 431 (1974). The remark may be argumentative but it constituted no more than fair comment on the evidence. Hunt v. Commonwealth, Ky., 466 S.W.2d 957 (1971). We find no error and no prejudice here.