prosecutor stated: As to count 1 the State must prove 2 elements beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt in order for you to convict the defendant. The first element is that [the victim] was under the age of 12. The evidence that we presented that was the testimony of her mother who testified as to her date of birth and importantly the testimony of [the victim] who you obviously could tell she was a young girl and told her her date of birth was [] so without any evidence contradicting that the State has proven to you beyond a reasonable doubt the first element of the charge. In cases like this, it is always a[sic] one-person’s word against another. In these particular cases — In this particular a. 4th DCA 2006) (same); Smith v. State, 843 So.2d 1010 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (<HOLDING>). Here, the first comment, “so without any
holding that if comment is fairly susceptible of being construed by the jury as a comment on the defendants exercise of his or her right to remain silent it violates the defendants state constitutional right to silence whether comment was introduced in states caseinchief or for impeachment purposes holding that the state may not impeach a defendant with his postarrest or postmiranda silence recognizing the right of a defendant to comment upon the failure of the state to produce evidence 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 holding the states comment that nobody testified he wasnt the guy was an impermissible comment on appellants right to remain silent in a case in which the only individual who could have contradicted the states evidence was the appellant holding that there was no abuse of discretion in denying mistrial based on a comment that the defendant was in prison where the comment provided the jury with little detail