Opinion ID: 1704603
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Did the prosecutor impermissibly comment on Logan's failure to testify?

Text: ¶ 38. [E]ach case must be considered individually where there is a question as to the prosecutor's comments on the defendant's failure to testify. Conway v. State, 397 So.2d 1095, 1099 (Miss. 1980). [T]he intention of the [prosecutor] is immaterial; the test is whether the language can be reasonably construed to be a comment upon the failure of the defendant to take the stand. Lambert v. State, 199 Miss. 790, 793, 25 So.2d 477, 478 (1946). [I]t is not error to comment on the defense's failure to offer any evidence to contradict the State's evidence. Beckwith v. State, 707 So.2d 547, 584 (Miss.1997); see also Smith v. United States, 234 F.2d 385, 389 (5th Cir.1956). ¶ 39. Logan contends that, twice during closing arguments, the prosecutor improperly mentioned Logan's failure to testify. In the first instance, the prosecutor told the jury [i]t's clear and the evidence is undisputed that on the dates that you will see in these [applications for salvage certificates of title], as evidenced by these documents, that the defendant went to the subdistrict here in Brookhaven and presented these vehicles for inspection. That evidence is not disputed. In the second instance, the prosecutor stated Mr. Luke said that the rivets were bad. All these rivets, there was an effort madethis is significantthere was an effort made to make these home-made rivets appear as though they had been issued by the factory. This design on the top of the rivets, filing the design on the top of the rivets. That took some effort. But it's clear that these rivets were bad. There's no evidence to the contrary. They were aluminum, not the stainless steel. At this point, Logan objected, asked the trial court to instruct the jury to disregard the comments, and moved for a mistrial. The trial court sustained the objection, admonished the jury, but denied the motion for mistrial. ¶ 40. When witnesses other than the defendant are available to refute the State's evidence, and these witnesses are not placed on the stand, this Court, in prior cases, has held that comments similar to those about which Logan now complains do not constitute reversible error. Conway, 397 So.2d at 1100 (citing Clark v. State, 260 So.2d 445 (Miss.1972)). ¶ 41. With regard to the assertion that he presented the vehicles for inspection in Brookhaven, Logan could have produced alibi witnesses testifying that he was elsewhere at the times he was allegedly in Brookhaven. He could have also produced handwriting experts to testify that the handwriting on the applications was not his own. With regard to the rivets, Logan could have produced experts in the field of metallurgy to refute Luke's contention that the rivets were home-made, and not factory originals. ¶ 42. Since Logan's testimony was not the only means by which he could have contradicted this so-called undisputed evidence and since prosecutors are not forbidden from commenting on a defendant's failure to contradict the State's evidence, the comments of the prosecutor cannot be reasonably construed to be a reference to Logan's failure to testify and, therefore, did not constitute reversible error.