Opinion ID: 1089693
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Argument of solicitor

Text: During his summation to the jury, the solicitor made this statement: Gentlemen, do you think we have proved those three elements? I submit to you that it is not denied, there is not a word come from this stand that denied the charge of rape. We have proved it to you, gentlemen, beyond a reasonable doubt that this prosecuting witness was raped. Now the only question that the defendant has raised here by his attorneys is the question of identity. Appellant objected to this argument, and moved for a mistrial, on the ground that it was with reference to the fact that the defense offered no testimony. The objection and motion were overruled and appellant excepted. Code 1940, Tit. 15, § 305, as amended by Act No. 124, appvd. June 23, 1949, Acts 1949, p. 150, provides as follows: On the trial of all indictments, complaints, or other criminal proceedings, the person on trial shall, at his own request, but not otherwise, be a competent witness; and his failure to make such a request shall not create any presumption against him, nor be the subject of comment by counsel. If the solicitor or other prosecuting attorney makes any comment concerning the defendant's failure to testify, a new trial must be granted on motion filed within thirty days from entry of the judgment. The statute does not prohibit a prosecutor from drawing reasonable inferences from the evidence presented in a case, and statements to the effect that the evidence is uncontradicted or undenied are not prohibited by the statute. See: Welch v. State, 263 Ala. 57, 58, 81 So.2d 901; Thompson v. State, 41 Ala.App. 353, 357-358, 132 So.2d 386; Dixon v. State, 39 Ala. App. 575, 105 So.2d 354; Littlefield v. State, 36 Ala.App. 507, 63 So.2d 565, cert. den. 258 Ala. 532, 63 So.2d 573; Dickey v. State, 21 Ala.App. 644, 111 So. 426. In Welch v. State, supra, the following was approved as a correct statement of the law; It is generally held that a statement by the prosecuting attorney to the effect that the evidence for the State is uncontradicted or undenied is not a comment on the defendant's failure to testify. We hold that the solicitor's argument was not violative of § 305, Tit. 15, as amended, supra. We have carefully reviewed the entire record, as required by Code 1940, Tit. 15, § 389, supra, and find no reversible error. The judgment is due to be, and is, affirmed. Affirmed. LIVINGSTON, C. J., and SIMPSON, MERRILL, COLEMAN and HARWOOD, JJ., concur.