State v. Zimmerman

The issue presented in this case is whether the prosecutor’s comments on the accused’s silence require the automatic reversal of the conviction.

It was improper for the prosecutor to comment on the accused’s silence. Griffin v. California (1965), 380 U.S. 609, 615. However, the pros*45ecutor’s improper comments do not require automatic reversal of the accused’s conviction. The conviction must be affirmed if it is concluded, based on the whole record, that the prosecutor’s improper comments were harmless beyond any reasonable doubt. United States v. Hasting (1983), 461 U.S. 499; cf. State v. Smith…