Opinion ID: 1626797
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Trial Counsel Failed to Object to Improper Remarks Made by Counsel for the State

Text: ¶ 34. Davis argued that defense counsel should have objected to comments made by the State during closing argument in the guilt phase where the State made the following remarks: But I didn't hear an argument from Mr. Shaddock [Davis's trial attorney] that it wasn't him on the videotape. I didn't hear any evidence or an argument from Mr. Shaddock that he was in another place at the time of the commission of this homicide. I didn't hear that argument. Davis argued that these statements were comments by the State on Davis's failure to testify at the guilt phase of the trial, citing West v. State, 485 So.2d 681 (Miss. 1985). The State submitted that the statement was merely argument to the jury concerning what the facts were in order for the jury to make a decision. The State was explaining that Davis did not contest certain facts and the reason the defense did not object was because the other evidence clearly proved Davis was at the scene of the crime during the actual commitment of the crime as evidenced by the video. ¶ 35. A direct comment on a defendant's failure to testify is not allowed under Mississippi law and constitutes reversible error. McGilberry, 741 So.2d at 907. Reference to a defendant's failure to testify by innuendo and insinuation is also forbidden. Id. Balanced against the rights of the defendant, however, is the rule that lawyers are given broad latitude in their closing arguments. Id. Thus, although a direct comment on the defendant's right to testify is forbidden, all other comments must be examined on a case-by-case basis. Id. There is a distinction between a comment on the failure to testify and a comment on the failure to put on a successful defense. Id. Not every comment regarding the lack of any defense or upon the defense presented is equivalent to a comment on the defendant's failure to testify. Id. at 908. [T]he State is entitled to comment on the lack of any defense, and such a comment will not be construed as a reference to a defendant's failure to testify by innuendo and insinuation. Id. ¶ 36. Counsel for the defense was not in error by allowing the statement by the State to be admitted. The record revealed that Davis was caught on video carrying a shotgun, reaching around the cash register, and walking around to the front of the cash register. It can easily be considered as trial strategy for Davis not to contest these facts. We are confident that the comment by the prosecutor did not result in a violation of Davis's fundamental rights or deprive him of a fair trial. Nor did it prejudice the jury against him. This issue is without merit.