Opinion ID: 1093220
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: did the district attorney improperly comment on the defendant's failure to testify during his closing argument?

Text: The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution states that no person may be compelled to take the witness stand against himself. This protection also exists in Art. III, § 26 of the Mississippi Constitution (... and he shall not be compelled to give evidence against himself ...). There is also statutory support for this proposition in Mississippi law: The accused shall be a competent witness for himself in any prosecution for crime against him. The failure of the accused, in any case, to testify shall not however operate to his prejudice or be commented on by counsel. § 13-1-9, Miss. Code Ann. (1972). Balanced against this interest however, is the rule that attorneys are to be given wide latitude in making their closing arguments. Johnson v. State, 477 So.2d 196, 209 (Miss. 1985). Thus, although a direct reference to the defendant's failure to testify is strictly prohibited, all other statements must necessarily be looked at on a case by case basis. In the case at bar, during closing arguments the District Attorney said: Breathing hard just as the police officer that arrested him said he does after he runs and what was he doing running? A mile from the bank at exactly the time the woman got shot when he said he lived out in north Jackson and didn't even know Jackson. Didn't even know the streets, except he had some folks out on Bailey Avenue and where was he arrested? Bailey Avenue. Now, what was he doing down there? They haven't bothered to tell you that. Jimpson has objected to the above statement as an improper comment on his failure to testify. An objection was made to the statement at trial, but it was overruled. As noted earlier, this Court has recognized that a direct comment on a defendant's failure to testify is not allowed and constitutes reversible error. Livingston v. State, 525 So.2d 1300, 1305-08 (Miss. 1988), Bridgeforth v. State, 498 So.2d 796, 797-8 (Miss. 1986). Prosecutors are also forbidden from referring to a defendant's failure to testify by innuendo and insinuation. Wilson v. State, 433 So.2d 1142, 1146 (Miss. 1983). There is a difference however, between a comment on the defendant's failure to testify and a comment on the failure to put on a successful defense. Terry Road (the location of the bank) is not located in north Jackson; therefore it is proper for the District Attorney to question the defense's inability to successfully explain Jimpson's presence in the area. The defense also put a witness on the stand who testified that he had seen Jimpson in the Lindaire Trailer Park near the bank around 10:00 a.m. on the day Linda Grantham was shot. Presumably, this represented an attempt to provide an alibi for Jimpson's presence in the area, although Mrs. Grantham was not shot until 2:00 p.m. In this context, the District Attorney was simply commenting on the unsuccessful effort by the defense to provide an alibi through the testimony of another witness. The use of the word they by the District Attorney appears to be a reference to Jimpson's defense counsel, not Jimpson himself. Jimpson was represented by two attorneys at trial, making use of the word they easily explainable. The District Attorney appears to have used the word they throughout his closing argument. In sum, although the references by the District Attorney are not entirely clear, they do not appear to have been improper or impermissible. Jones v. State, 517 So.2d 1295, 1302 (Miss. 1987). As a consequence, this Court holds that this assignment of error should be overruled.