Opinion ID: 1842908
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: comment on butler's failure to testify

Text: When an accused exercises his or her constitutional right not to testify, the circuit judge must see that the State makes no direct or indirect comment on this fact. See e.g. Ladner v. State, 584 So.2d 743, 754 (Miss. 1991), cert. denied ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 663, 116 L.Ed.2d 754 (1991); Livingston v. State, 525 So.2d 1300, 1305-08 (Miss. 1988). Though painful, the responsibility and duty of a circuit judge when such a comment is made is to declare a mistrial on the spot. Such celerity on the circuit judge's part will not only have a salutary effect, but promote judicial economy in sparing this Court the task of the inevitable reversal. In this case Butler did not testify. She had made statements to law enforcement officers duly admitted into evidence. It was competent for the district attorney to comment on the weight and worth of what was in evidence, but he also had the duty to carefully, very carefully refrain from making any remark which directly or by insinuation focused the jurors' attention or alerted them to the fact that Butler did not take the stand. Miss. Const. of 1890, Art. 3 § 26; U.S. Const. Amend. V; Miss. Code Ann. § 13-1-9 (1972) (Repealed by Laws, 1991, Ch. 573, § 141, eff. July 1, 1991.) That was an art he was obligated to master. [2] In the course of closing argument, the prosecution made several jabs around the perimeter of commenting upon Butler's failure to testify. What clearly amounted to comments on her failure to testify, however, were the following: Ladies and Gentlemen, that is an admission of guilt, but I submit to you she hasn't told you the whole truth yet. ... . Ladies and Gentlemen, those bruises were not inflicted by the same wound that created the massive internal injuries that subsequently killed this child. It could not have happened. So, Ladies and Gentlemen, she has not yet told you the whole truth of the torment she subjected her son to. You still don't know the whole story. Incredible, unbelievable evasion from start to finish. Ladies and Gentlemen, is that what an innocent person does? Objections to these comments were overruled. The only living witness, of course, to the infant's death was Butler. She was the only person who could tell what had happened. As noted, the prosecuting attorney could have very properly evaluated the weight and worth of the statements she had given the law enforcement officers, so long as there was no suggestion about her failure to testify. Shook v. State, 552 So.2d 841, 851 (Miss. 1989); Alexander v. State, 520 So.2d 127, 130 (Miss. 1988). When he added, however, that Butler hasn't told you the whole truth yet,  (emphasis added) there was no escaping a wonder in the jurors' minds that there was more to come if she had taken the witness stand. He proceeded to exacerbate an already reversible error by adding,  you still don't know the whole story. (Emphasis added) Who was the only person alive who could give the whole story? Butler. The prosecution could hardly have made the point plainer if it had simply come out and said, There is a lot more to tell, but Butler has not seen fit to get on the witness stand and tell you. These comments were reversible error, so egregious in fact that even if there had been no objection at trial, we would nevertheless have been obligated to reverse. Livingston, 525 So.2d at 1305-08. Because we reverse on this ground, the remainder of the opinion is confined to questions likely to recur on retrial.