Opinion ID: 1266535
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Comment on Powell's Failure to Testify

Text: Powell assigns error to the trial court's failure to grant a mistrial following the Commonwealth's alleged reference in closing argument to Powell's failure to testify. Powell asserts the statement made by the Commonwealth's Attorney referred to Powell's failure to tell [the jury] what his intent or motive was for killing Stacey and went to the central issue of the capital murder charge only. Accordingly, we will consider this issue in that context. As a general rule, any comment that the Commonwealth's Attorney made referring to the defendant's election not to testify is a violation of his right against self-incrimination as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 615, 85 S.Ct. 1229, 14 L.Ed.2d 106 (1965), and Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of Virginia and as explicated in Code § 19.2-268, Elliott v. Commonwealth, 172 Va. 595, 598-601, 1 S.E.2d 273, 274-76 (1939). A comment is constitutionally and statutorily forbidden if  the language used was manifestly intended or was of such character that the jury would naturally and necessarily take it to be a comment on the failure of the accused to testify.' Hines v. Commonwealth, 217 Va. 905, 907, 234 S.E.2d 262, 263 (1977) (quoting Knowles v. United States, 224 F.2d 168, 170 (10th Cir.1955)). Contrary to the Commonwealth's assertions at trial and in this Court, the context of the statement by the Commonwealth's Attorney does not clearly reference Powell's videotaped confession that he had raped Kristie and stabbed both Stacey and Kristie, but that he had not taken any money from their house. Although the Commonwealth's Attorney had mentioned Powell's admission in this videotape earlier in his argument, the issue here arose when he was arguing that the evidence, specifically Kristie's testimony and that of her mother, supported finding that Powell was rummaging through Stacey's possessions looking for money to steal as she lay dying in a pool of blood. The Commonwealth's Attorney then stated: If you don't think [Stacey] kept money in her underwear drawer, acquit him. If you think her mother made that up, acquit him. But that's not the evidence. I'll say this to you[,] it's as likely as any scenario  but we'll never know because he hasn't told us .. At that point, Powell's counsel interposed his objection, and the trial court directed that the objection would not be considered until the Commonwealth's argument concluded. The Commonwealth's Attorney then resumed his argument, asserting that after letting [Stacey's] life's blood drain out, Powell [g]oes and takes her money, goes through [her] house. While it is not implausible that the Commonwealth's Attorney intended the statement he hasn't told us to refer to Powell's express denial that he had looked for money or something else to steal after stabbing Stacey, it is more likely that the jury would have taken the statement to be a comment on the failure of Powell to testify and offer rebuttal to the evidence to which the prosecutor had just alluded. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court erred in failing to find that the statement was an improper comment on Powell's failure to testify concerning his motive to kill Stacey. However, Powell was ultimately acquitted of capital murder in the commission of robbery or attempted robbery and the associated charge of robbery or attempted robbery, and his conviction will be reversed on other grounds for the other capital murder charge. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court's error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Dunn v. Commonwealth, 222 Va. 750, 753, 284 S.E.2d 807, 809 (1981).