State v. Ruffin

Summary

The court affirmed the defendant's convictions, holding that the prosecutor's closing argument about the absence of testimony contradicting the victim did not naturally and necessarily constitute a comment on the defendant's failure to testify. The remarks were reasonably understood as an argument concerning the victim's credibility, particularly because credibility was central to the case and other witnesses could have contradicted aspects of the victim's account. Although the claim was unpreserved, the court reviewed it under its prosecutorial-misconduct framework and found no misconduct.