items to his mother’s house to use to kill Scurlock. The arguments of the prosecutor addressed the defense’s theory of the case, and attempted to focus on the State’s evidence and lack of evidence contradicting the State’s theory of the case. Based upon the record, we conclude that the prosecutor’s comments in their totality were addressed to the evidence rather than Zamani’s failure to testify. See Callahan v. State, 527 N.E.2d 1133, 1137 (Ind.1988) (noting that a remark about the lack of an explanation by the defense concerning otherwise incriminating evidence against the accused is proper so long as the prosecutor focuses on the absence of evidence to contradict the State’s evidence and not the accused’s failure to testify); Hancock v. State, 737 N.E.2d 791, 798 (Ind.Ct.App.2000) (<HOLDING>). [38] But even if we assumed misconduct, we
holding that prosecutors comment on defendants failure to testify constituted plain error affecting the defendants substantial rights holding that the prosecutors reference to the nonexistence of mitigating evidence was not a comment on the defendants failure to testify holding the prosecutors statements were not an inappropriate comment on the defendants failure to testify but rather a comment on the defendants failure to present convincing evidence to support his defense holding that failure to object to prosecutors comment on defendants failure to testify preserved nothing for appellate review holding that comment by prosecutor in closing argument that defense counsel did not produce evidence of the defendants innocence was not a comment on the defendants failure to testify