 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Varnell10/6/2005
e whether the Defendant has proved prejudice. As part of this inquiry, we must look at any curative measures undertaken by the trial court, and this includes curative instructions. As the trial court noted, it instructed the jury:
Any defendant in a criminal case has a right, as a matter of law, to refrain from testifying, and you are not to indulge any adverse inference against him by reason of the fact that he did not testify, but you will decide the case solely from the evidence which was introduced, and not from any motive of why he did not testify.
Although not given as curative instructions, these instructions were thorough and clear, alleviating any possible confusion regarding the effect of the Defendant's failure to testify. Given these circumstances, we conclude that any allegedly improper arguments by the State would not have prejudiced the Defendant. We conclude, therefore, that this issue is without merit.
III. Conclusion
In accordance with the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court committed no reversible error. Therefore, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
|