Goldsbury v. State, 342 P.3d 834

Kenneth Goldsbury fired bird shot through his motel-room door, striking victim Marvin Long; State charged attempted first-degree murder and related offenses.
At trial Long testified; Goldsbury exercised his constitutional right not to testify.
In rebuttal closing, the prosecutor said only the victim and the defendant knew what happened and the victim testified — an implicit comment on Goldsbury’s silence.
Defense counsel did not object; the trial court had given jury instructions before and immediately after closing emphasizing the defendant’s absolute right not to testify and that jurors must not draw any inference from his silence.
The jury convicted Goldsbury; the court of appeals found the prosecutor’s comment impermissible but concluded there was no plain error. The Alaska Supreme Court granted review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Goldsbury)	Held
Whether the prosecutor’s remark during rebuttal closing impermissibly commented on the defendant’s silence and violated the right against self-incrimination	The comment was not reversible because it was brief/indirect and cured by jury instructions; any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt	The prosecutor’s statement was a constitutionally impermissible comment on his failure to testify and required reversal (or plain-error relief)	The remark did violate the Fifth Amendment/Alaska Const. protections, but the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given its isolated, indirect nature and the jury instructions given before and after closing
Whether the unpreserved comment meets the Adams plain-error test	The State argued that the error was not prejudicial and thus not plain error	Goldsbury argued the error was obvious, non‑tactical, affected substantial rights, and was prejudicial	Court found the error was obvious and non‑tactical and affected a substantial right, but not prejudicial because harmless beyond a reasonable doubt

Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965) (prosecutor may not comment on defendant’s silence or invite adverse inference)
Adams v. State, 261 P.3d 758 (Alaska 2011) (plain‑error test for unpreserved claims)
Charles v. State, 326 P.3d 978 (Alaska 2014) (prejudice is the touchstone of plain‑error review)
Johnson v. State, 328 P.3d 77 (Alaska 2014) (scope of appellate review for unpreserved constitutional error)
McCracken v. State, 431 P.2d 513 (Alaska 1967) (comment on failure to testify is improper and reversible error)