☢ test - Í

Middlebrooks v. State, 241 Ga.App. 193, 526 S.E.2d 406 (December 1, 1999). Defendant’s conviction for motor vehicle hijacking affirmed. Trial court gave deliberating jury a charge on conspiracy; “while Middlebrooks contends that he was denied the opportunity to discuss conspiracy during his closing argument, ‘it was incumbent on him to request to reargue after the charge. Failure to do so acts as a waiver.’ Hall v. State, 259 Ga. 243, 245(4), 378 S.E.2d 860 (1989); Williams v. State, 176 Ga.App. 503, 505(1), 336 S.E.2d 367 (1985).” 3. BOLSTERING See subheading BOLSTERING, above 4. CONTENT – APPEAL TO SYMPATHY Stinski v. State, 286 Ga. 839, 691 S.E.2d 854 (March 1, 2010). No improper argument at defendant’s capital murder trial. “The only specific instance of allegedly-improper argument Stinski cites is the prosecutor's juxtaposition of photographs of the victims while alive with photographs of their remains after the murders and arson. This argument was not improper. McPherson v. State, 274 Ga. 444, 450(9), 453(19) (553 S.E.2d 569) (2001) (holding that photographs of the victim in life and of the victim after the murder were admissible, and that the prosecutor may display photographs that have been admitted into evidence during closing arguments).” Bolick v. State, 244 Ga.App. 567, 536 S.E.2d 242 (June 22, 2000). Burglary and related convictions affirmed; State’s closing argument was supported by the evidence and wasn’t improper. “Bolick challenges the State's closing argument, wherein he claims the State made several improper remarks with the intention of playing on the jurors' emotions . Bolick complains about the prosecutor's statement that Bolick appeared to be a nice person, but ‘don't let him try to trick you by his appearance like he tried to do to [the victim].’ The prosecutor also raised the possibility that Bolick may have murdered the victim if she had been unable to escape. Bolick had already admitted, however, that the fact that the victim escaped probably saved her life. ‘A prosecutor is permitted to argue inferences from the evidence, even if such inferences are remote, illogical or unreasonable.’ (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Crews v. State, 226 Ga.App. 232, 236(5)(b), 486 S.E.2d 61 (1997). See also Mency v. State, 228 Ga.App. 640, 648(2)(i), 492 S.E.2d 692 (1997). Under the egregious circumstances of this case, this Court finds that the State's arguments were logical, reasonable inferences from the evidence presented, including Bolick's own admissions.” Green v. State , 242 Ga.App. 868, 532 S.E.2d 111 (March 17, 2000). Aggravated sodomy and related convictions affirmed; prosecutor’s closing argument wasn’t improper: “‘[J.A.G. is] waiting for justice. The State's waiting for justice. [J.A.G.] doesn't have any rights other than the twelve of you sitting here. It doesn't matter what your decision is today. It's never going to make it any better for [J.A.G.]. It's always going to have happened to him. But the wrong decision could make it worse.’ … Although defendant maintains on appeal that the State's closing argument implied that a not guilty verdict ‘could make it worse’ for the victim, we conclude that the State's express disclaimer that it ‘doesn't matter what your decision is today’ negates any inference that the jury should return a guilty verdict solely because the victim would suffer from a not guilty verdict. The trial court did not err in overruling the stated objection. See Moon v. State, 258 Ga. 748, 760(35), 375 S.E.2d 442 (1988) (observation that murder defendant showed victim no mercy within the wide latitude accorded prosecutors in closing argument).” Davis v. State, 285 Ga. 343, 676 S.E.2d 215 (April 28, 2009). Prosecutor’s argument was not improper, even if intended to evoke sympathy for the murder victim. “‘Argument which evokes sympathy ... is not necessarily improper.’ James v. State, 270 Ga. 675, 680(12), 513 S.E.2d 207 (1999). See also Dupree v. State, 267 Ga. 38, 40(3), 472 S.E.2d 299 (1996) (not error for a prosecutor to point out victim's family in the courtroom). Furthermore, any purported harm was cured when the trial court instructed the jurors that they could only consider the evidence and the law as charged, and that sympathy for the victim and his family should play no role in their verdict. See Harper v. State, 249 Ga. 519, 535(14), 292 S.E.2d 389 (1982) (no reversible error where, after State's alleged attempt to elicit sympathy during closing argument, court charged jury that sympathy could play no role in their determination of guilt or innocence).” 5. CONTENT – ARGUMENT NOT BASED ON EVIDENCE Silvey v. State, 335 Ga.App. 383, 780 S.E.2d 708 (November 20, 2015). Physical precedent only on this point. Burglary convictions affirmed. No error in allowing “State’s closing argument suggesting that Silvey intentionally changed his appearance for trial by cutting his hair and shaving his facial hair, noting, ‘If identity is the issue you plan to argue at trial, isn’t it in your best interest to look as different as you possibly can at trial?’” Although defendant argues that he was required to cut his hair by jail regulations, Court of Appeals notes that he wasn’t required to shave his mustache of cut his hair shorter than three inches. “The State’s argument that Silvey had intentionally changed his appearance to make identification more difficult was a reasonable inference from the evidence, and we find no abuse of discretion by the trial court in overruling Silvey’s objection.”