state may not comment on a defendant’s silence or failure to come forward. But notwithstanding that rule, we find no reversible error. Several of the comments to which Turner points are permissible comments on his flight rather than impermissible comments on his silence. Several of the comments concerned Turner’s failure to answer questions during conversations with witnesses, and therefore were properly the subject of questioning by the prosecutor. And counsel’s failure to object to any comments that were improper does not entitle Turner to a new trial, given the overwhelming evidence of his guilt, including his admission that he “touched [the victim] and [he] made her touch [him].” “[Statements about flight are proper as circumstantial evidence of guilt.” Rush, 294 Ga. at 390 (2) (a) (<HOLDING>). The prosecutor’s comments about Turner
holding that the prosecutors comment that the defendant sits here in front of the jury a guilty man was erroneous and should not be repeated in future cases holding that prosecutors statement that the guilty man flees but the righteous man stands bold as a lion was not an improper comment on defendants failure to come forward because statements about a defendants flight are proper as circumstantial evidence of guilt 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 the prosecutors reference to the nonexistence of mitigating evidence was not a comment on the defendants failure to testify holding that prosecutors comment on defendants failure to testify constituted plain error affecting the defendants substantial rights