Commonwealth v. Pullum

In certain pivotal respects, this case stands in counterpoint to Commonwealth v. Young, ante 452 (1986). Here the prosecutor’s closing argument asked the jury to draw inferences from the defendant’s deportment at trial which the record does not justify. The prosecutor’s comment also underlined the defendant’s failure to testify. We think it is necessary to reverse the conviction.

Pullum, the defendant, stood trial for breaking and entering a dwelling house in the nighttime, unarmed, with intent to commit a felony. G. L. c. 266, § 15. Taking the evidence most favorable to the Commonwealth, he…