A similar method of analysis was utilized in State v. Bennett, 172 W.Va. 131, 304 S.E.2d 35 (1983), wherein this Court focused upon the pivotal fact that the defendant was the only person who could have denied the drug offense. Thus, in the prosecution for an alleged delivery of a controlled substance, the prosecutor’s repeated reminders that the State’s evidence had not been denied could only have been referring to the defendant’s absence of denial. This Court reversed the conviction, finding that the prosecuting attorney’s remarks constituted an impermissible comment upon the defendant’s failure to testify, since the defendant was the only one who could have denied the drug offense. The Court explained as follows: This Court has permitted prosecutorial statements that did not spec ) (<HOLDING>); Dean v. State, 690 So.2d 720 (Fla.App.1997)
holding that statute which prohibited possession of machines designed to produce credit cards did not have a rational relationship to goal of preventing credit card fraud because the statute did not require intent to put the equipment to an unlawful use recognizing statutory credit holding that thirteen fraudulent uses of credit cards were not pursuant to a single scheme holding that comment on absence of explanation as well as insufficiency of girlfriends explanation for defendants possession of stolen credit cards was not harmless error since defendant was only person other than his girlfriend who could have explained the possession of the credit cards holding victims with poor credit histories were particularly susceptible to schemes involving offers of preapproved credit cards