it is the word of Milcayla against the plea of not guilty that [appellant] entered .... So if you are looking for a reason to not believe [the victim] there isn’t one. Because there is no evidence that she would have made this up at this particular time under these particular circumstances. And that’s the consideration you should make in deciding whether or not her testimony is credible. (Emphasis added). These comments were objected to contemporaneously, and thus, the issue was properly preserved. A comment suggesting a witness gave “uncontra-dicted” or “uncontroverted” evidence is an impermissible comment on appellant’s right .to remain silent in those cases where the defendant is the only individual who can contradict the evidence. Hill v. State, 980 So.2d 1195 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (<HOLDING>); see also Watts v. State, 921 So.2d 722, 724
recognizing that davis was concerned only with the right to counsel and not the right to remain silent holding district courts rejection of appellants uncontroverted valuation testimony compelled remand holding testimony that defendant had no response to question during police interview was not impermissible comment on his constitutional right to remain silent where defendant had voluntarily waived his miranda rights holding the states comment that the only witness gave uncontradicted and uncontroverted testimony establishing appellants guilt was an impermissible comment on appellants right to remain silent where appellant was the only individual capable of refuting the witnesss testimony holding state did not impermissibly comment on defendants right to remain silent when it crossexamined him on the inconsistency of his testimony with the prior statement he made to the arresting officer after being given the miranda warnings