imposed was the statutory minimum sentence under OCGA § 16-13-31 (a) (1) (C), the court did not err. 2. Edwards claims the court erroneously denied his motion for a mistrial because the State made numerous comments concerning his failure to testify and also made improper inflammatory remarks. Edwards challenges the propriety of eight statements used in the State’s closing arguments. (a) First, we examine the alleged references to Edwards’ failure to testify. Two of the prosecutor’s statements alluded to Edwards’ failure to respond to statements made by the investigating officer at the scene of the investigatory traffic stop. The record indicates that while Bishop was conducting the stop, he told Edwards that he noticed “a large bulge, sticking way out.” Edw 2124, 65 LE2d 86) (1980) (<HOLDING>). Based on Jenkins, supra, there is no federal
holding that the government may comment on a defendants prearrest premiranda silence as well as his postarrest pr emiranda silence holding that impeachment by use of prearrest silence does not violate fifth or fourteenth amendments holding that state constitution prohibits substantive use of prearrest silence holding that substantive use of prearrest silence is contrary to fifth amendment holding that the government can use prearrest silence for impeachment purposes against a defendant because no government action induced the silence