rights. (Citations omitted). 209 Miss, at 155-56, 46 So.2d at 97. See also, Gallion v. State, 469 So.2d 1247, 1249 (Miss.1985); Smith v. State, 457 So.2d 327, 333-36 (Miss.1984); Read v. State, 430 So.2d 832, 837-41 (Miss.1983). As we stated in West, comments on the defendant’s failure to testify violate an “elementary and long established principle of law.” In West, Griffin, and Monroe, we recognized that this principle involves a constitutional right. This case is particularly ill suited for the application of a procedural bar. We require that a contemporaneous objection be made at trial so that the trial judge can have the opportunity to cure the complained of error. However, the error complained of here is incurable. See Peterson v. State, 357 So.2d 113, 115 (Miss.1978), (<HOLDING>). See also Sanders v. State, 73 Miss. 444, 18
holding that judges comments to jury during equal pay act trial were harmless error holding that failure to request an admonition waives any error resulting from a failure to admonish the jury holding that prosecutors direct comments on a defendants failure to testify were not cured by subsequent inclusion in the jury charge of an instruction regarding the defendants right not to testify holding that prosecutors comment on defendants failure to testify constituted plain error affecting the defendants substantial rights holding that trial judges admonition of the jury to disregard prosecutors comments on the defendants failure to testify did not cure the error