Opinion ID: 1106169
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 17

Heading: the prosecutor's comment on the appellant's failure to testify violates mississippi law and the fifth and fourteenth amendments to the u.s. constitution.

Text: This Court has made it clear that direct comment on a defendant's failure to testify is constitutionally impermissible and constitutes error. Griffin v. State, 557 So.2d 542, 552 (Miss. 1990); Shook v. State, 552 So.2d 841, 851 (Miss. 1989); Monroe v. State, 515 So.2d 860, 865 (Miss. 1987). Further, the prosecutor is also prohibited from referring by innuendo and insinuation to the defendant's failure to testify. Jimpson v. State, 532 So.2d 985, 991 (Miss. 1988) (citing Wilson v. State, 433 So.2d 1142, 1146 (Miss. 1983)). What constitutes such error is, however, to be determined from the facts and circumstances of each case. Peterson v. State, 357 So.2d 113, 117 (Miss. 1978). The question here is whether or not the comment of the prosecutor can reasonably be construed as a comment upon the failure of Ladner to take the stand. In Shook, supra, the defense claimed that the prosecutor impermissibly commented on Shook's failure to testify when, in closing argument, he said: At this point in the trial neither you nor I know if the defendant contends he's not guilty because he didn't shoot the gun into that house or if the defendant claims he's not guilty because he did shoot the gun into the house and he could not appreciate the wrongfulness of that act when he fired the gun. Id. at 851. This Court found that [t]he comments in the case at bar [were] comments on the defense presented, or lack thereof, and not comments on the failure to testify and held the prosecutor's statement did not require reversal. Id. (citing Jimpson at 991). In Griffin, supra, the prosecutor made the following statement in closing argument: [T]hey tell you, there's one man alive today who can tell you what happened, and I agree with that. There is one person who could tell you what happened and we have  we have a statement  we have a statement from him. We have a confession, an oral confession, we have a written confession, yes, we do. Id. at 552. In a five to four opinion, the Court held that the above argument was an impermissible comment on the defendant's failure to testify, which required reversal. In the case at bar, the prosecutor called the jury's attention to jury instruction S-1, which set out the elements of the crime of capital murder. He went through each of the elements and recalled the State's proof: (1) that the killing occurred in Hancock County; (2) that the deceased had been a living person; (3) that Ladner had shot the victim with a deadly weapon (a gun); and (4) that the shooting had caused her death. The prosecutor's statement on the last element of the crime is argued here as error: The fifth thing, and the last element that we have to prove, is that the actions of the defendant were not done in necessary self-defense. I don't believe that there's been any testimony that he acted in self-defense in the case. It's clear that that element we've met. There's no showing of self-defense in this case. Then it says: If you so believe from the evidence in this case beyond a reasonable doubt you shall find the defendant guilty of capital murder. If the State has failed to prove any one of these five elements, then you can't do it. After considering all the facts and circumstances of this case we are of the opinion that the prosecutor was not commenting on Ladner's failure to testify, although the words any testimony are bother-some. In our view, the argument of the State's counsel would be to show the State had proved the five elements set forth in the instruction, rather than a comment upon the failure of Ladner to testify. The issue is resolved against the appellant.