Opinion ID: 1653350
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: did the trial court err in overruling mr. burke's motion for a mistrial after the state commented upon his failure to call a witness?

Text: Burke assigns as error the fact that the prosecutor allegedly improperly commented on his failure to call a witness, who Burke claims was equally accessible to the State. During the State's closing argument, the following occurred: BY MS. ALFONSO: What just screams at me from what the Defendant said in his testimony is that if he was at a friend's, where's the friend? BY MR. VARNADO: Object to this, Your Honor. BY MS. ALFONSO: Another thing ... BY MR. VARNADO: (Interposing) ... and move for a mistrial. BY MS. ALFONSO: ... where is the friend. BY THE COURT: Overruled. The Court's decision in Brown v. State, 200 Miss. 881, 27 So.2d 838 (1946), controls in this case. The general principle is that the failure of either party to examine a witness equally accessible to both is not a proper subject of comment before the jury by either of the parties. Id. 27 So.2d at 840 (citing Heafner v. State, 196 Miss. 430, 17 So.2d 806, 808 (1944)). See also Doby v. State, 557 So.2d 533, 538-39 (Miss. 1990); Holmes v. State, 537 So.2d 882, 885 (Miss. 1988); Griffin v. State, 533 So.2d 444, 449 (Miss. 1988); Brock v. State, 530 So.2d 146, 154-55 (Miss. 1988); Williams v. State, 522 So.2d 201, 206-07 (Miss. 1988). However, [t]he mere fact that a witness may be hailed into court by the compulsory process thereof at the instance of either party does not necessarily make such witness equally accessible to each, or both. Id. [W]hile the person of a witness may be accessible to a party, and his physical presence to testify may be procured by process, that is not the whole question; it is also, whether or not the testimony of the witness is equally available to such party. It is one thing for the person of a witness to be available, and his presence at court obtainable, but it is entirely another thing that what he knows can be equally availed of by the other party. Smith v. State, 187 Miss. 96, 101, 192 So. 436, 437 (1939). There is no suggestion on this record that the witness in question was not equally available to the state. He is not identified as a person under the control of the defendant. Nor is he a close relative who would ordinarily be expected to be put in an unacceptable compromising position should he be called to testify as to the validity of Burke's alibi. Under the circumstances we must conclude that the court erred in failing to sustain the objection to this argument. This Court has held that where there is substantial evidence supporting the defendant's guilt, a prosecutor's comment about a potential witness's absence is not reversible error in and of itself. Brock, supra, at 154-155. In Brock, the Court noted that a jury is more likely prejudiced where the evidence is close. Id. (citing Collins v. State, 408 So.2d 1376, 1380 (Miss. 1982)). Conversely, this Court has reversed cases on this ground alone where the prosecuting attorney remarked that the defendant did not call a particular witness. See, e.g., Holmes, 537 So.2d at 884-85; Madlock v. State, 440 So.2d 315, 317-18 (Miss. 1983); Morgan v. State, 388 So.2d 495, 497-98 (Miss. 1980). Additionally, where comments by the prosecuting attorney were coupled with other errors, this Court reversed decisions holding the accused was denied a fair trial. See Collins v. State, 408 So.2d at 1379-80; Griffin v. State, 533 So.2d at 449. Here, the only evidence offered by Burke was his own testimony. He is also entitled to the reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence of the involvement of Stallworth and Ball. His own credibility is undermined by the conflicting versions of his whereabouts at the time of the burglary. Moreover, the possible involvement of Stallworth and Ball does not negate Burke's involvement. In contrast, the state's evidence was chiefly that of an independent eye witness whose testimony was not seriously impeached. That witness did not witness a burglary, however. What she saw was Burke at the scene of the burglary in the apartment where he had no right to be during the time period when the burglary was committed. In the end, we need not resolve the harmless error issue here because this error was compounded by another.