Opinion ID: 1287539
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Right to remain silent and burden of proof

Text: Washington next argues that the State committed reversible error by commenting on his right to remain silent and by indirectly implying that he had the burden of proof instead of the State. Specifically, Washington notes that during the prosecutor's opening statement, he stated that the defense has their own theories and they are certainly going to try to convince you that their theories are what happened. In the same opening statement, the prosecutor stated that now you're going to hear the defensewell, I don't know if you will or not, but I'm not here to go into a month long custody battle between the parents in this case, the mother and the father. We conclude that the State did not commit reversible error by commenting on Washington's right to remain silent. The prosecutor's comments in the present case did not portray Washington's right to remain silent in a negative light nor did they infringe upon Washington's right to remain silent and refrain from testifying on his own behalf. Murray v. State, 105 Nev. 579, 584, 781 P.2d 288, 291 (1989). We further conclude that Washington never had the burden of proof in the case at bar. We have stated that [i]t is a fundamental principle of criminal law that the State has the burden of proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and that the defendant is not obligated to take the stand or produce any evidence whatsoever. Barron v. State, 105 Nev. 767, 778, 783 P.2d 444, 451 (1989). In the present case, during the prosecutor's opening statement, he stated that it's the State's obligation to prove to you that what happened was a crime. Furthermore, at the conclusion of the evidentiary phase of the trial, the jury was instructed that [t]he defendant is presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. This presumption places upon the State the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt every material element of the crime charged and that the defendant [was] the person who committed the offense. Accordingly, we conclude that Washington's argument is without merit.