Wilcek v. State

Appellant was convicted of cattle theft.

We deem it unnecessary to go into any particular statement of the facts.

[1] 1. During the trial and while one of the prosecuting attorneys in the case, Mr. Peareson, was addressing the jury, he remarked: “The defendant’s defense in this case is— Although he has offered no testimony to that effect, X do not mean to refer to his failure to testify.” Whereupon appellant’s attorney, in the hearing and presence of the jury, excepted to said argument, upon the ground that it was an allusion to the fact that the defendant had not testified, arid the court…