The time allotted for closing arguments is within the sound discretion of the trial court. State v. Jenkins (1984), 15 Ohio St.3d 164, 221, 473 N.E.2d 264, 312-313, citing Halsey v. State (1932), 42 Ohio App. 291, 297, appeal dismissed (1932), 125 Ohio St. 628; State v. Kay (1967), 12 Ohio App.2d 38, 49-52; United States v. Mills (C.A. 6, 1966), 366 F.2d 512, 515. We will not disturb the trial court's decision absent a clear abuse of discretion.

It is well-established that the time allowed for closing argument is within the sound discretion of the trial court. Halsey v. State (1932), 42 Ohio App. 291, 297, appeal dismissed (1932), 125 Ohio St. 628; State v. Kay (1967), 12 Ohio App.2d 38, 49-52 [41 O.O.2d 91]; United States v. Mills (C.A. 6, 1966), 366 F.2d 512, 515. The exercise of such discretion "`* * * will not be interfered with by an appellate tribunal in the absence of a clear showing of its abuse to the prejudice of the substantial rights of the complaining party. * * *'" Braeunig v. Russell (1960), 170 Ohio St. 444, 446 [11 O.O.2d 200].

Both by the constitutional (Section 10, Article I, Constitution) and statutory (Section 13444-3, General Code) provisions, that failure may be considered by the court and jury and made the subject of comment by counsel. Of course, the permission to consider the accused's failure to testify necessarily means that, if no other reason appeared, his unexplained failure to testify when he had full opportunity to do so would justify the trier of the facts in drawing the inference that he had no explanation to make of the incriminating evidence introduced against him. Halsey v. State, 42 Ohio App. 291, at 295, 182 N.E. 127. Let us now consider the evidence.

It is to be noted that the objection is not specific and does not relate to the failure to administer this oath. It was held in the case of Halsey v. State, 42 Ohio App. 291, at 299, 182 N.E. 127, that the provisions of Section 13443-16, General Code, are mandatory, but that it does not necessarily follow that the failure to administer the oath would require the granting of a new trial. It is specifically stated on page 299 of the opinion that "counsel cannot sit idly by, observing that no oath is administered, and not objecting to the failure to administer the oath, and then, after the verdict is returned, first make complaint of such failure, where the bailiff properly performs his duty and where no prejudice results to the defendant from the failure to administer such oath." Counsel for appellant refer to the case of Koons v. State, 36 Ohio St. 195, at 200.