Opinion ID: 2497005
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: whether the state improperly commented on the defendant's right to remain silent.

Text: ¶ 42. Anderson argues that the prosecutor violated his Fifth-Amendment right to remain silent by making the following statement during the State's final closing argument: I heard defense counsel up here, and it interests me because I took notes during the opening statement and during closing statement, and they say a lot of things. But the one thing I never heard come out of either of those attorneys['] mouths whose job it is to represent that defendant is that he did not do it. Defense counsel objected to this statement, and the trial court overruled the objection, holding that the prosecutor was referring to the defense counsels' opening and closing arguments. Despite the trial court's ruling that the prosecutor had commented on defense counsels' arguments, and not Anderson's failure to testify, Anderson now argues that the prosecutor improperly commented on his right to remain silent. [12] ¶ 43. As we have noted, when considering whether an attorney's comment during opening or closing statements was improper, this Court must determine whether the natural and probable effect of the improper argument is to create unjust prejudice against the accused so as to result in a decision influenced by the prejudice so created. Tate, 20 So.3d at 629. ¶ 44. This Court distinguishes between comments on a defendant's right to remain silent, which violate the Fifth Amendment, and comments on the defendant's failure to present any evidence, which do not result in error. See id. at 630; Dora v. State, 986 So.2d 917, 923 (Miss.2008). This Court has held that [t]here is a difference ... between a comment on the defendant's failure to testify and a comment on the defendant's failure to put on a successful defense. The State is entitled to comment on the lack of any defense, and such comment will not be construed as a reference to the defendant's failure to testify by innuendo and insinuation. The question is whether the prosecutor's statement can be construed as commenting upon the failure of the defendant to take the stand. Dora, 986 So.2d at 923 (citing Wright v. State, 958 So.2d 158, 161 (Miss.2007) (internal citations omitted)). ¶ 45. In the present case, the prosecutor commented on defense counsels' failure to assert that Anderson did not commit the accused crimes. Without reaching the question of whether the prosecutor's comments were otherwise objectionable, they were not a comment on the defendant's right to remain silent. Therefore, we find no merit in this assignment of error.