☢ test - Í

stating that ‘the wicked flee when no man pursueth’ described Walker, by asking the jurors not to decide to ‘let the Lord handle it,’ and by stating that the jury might be ‘the Lord’s fisherman to handle’ the defendant’s accountability for his crimes. Because he did not object at trial, this issue is waived with regard to Walker’s guilt. Gissendaner v. State, [272 Ga. 704, 713 (532 S.E.2d 677) (2000)]. We further conclude that the arguments did not result in the imposition of the death penalty through the influence of passion, prejudice, or any other arbitrary factor, because, unlike the argument in another case wherein the prosecutor improperly urged the imposition of the death penalty based upon a religious mandate, the arguments in Walker’s case simply urged the jury to accept its legal duty to pass judgment rather than abdicating that role. See id. at 714; Carruthers v. State, 272 Ga. 306(2) (528 S.E.2d 217) (2000) (reversing where the prosecutor argued that religious texts mandated a death sentence). See also King v. State, 273 Ga. 258(35) (539 S.E.2d 783) (2000) (‘[S]ome discretion must be afforded to trial courts in determining whether a particular argument, whether made by the State or by a defendant, tends to urge jurors’ compliance with some religious mandate in potential exclusion of their duty to consider all applicable sentencing alternatives.’).” 2. “Walker argues that the prosecutor argued improperly in the sentencing phase by suggesting that the victim might have said ‘a last little prayer as his life faded away.’ We find that the argument was not improper. Counsel enjoy ‘very wide’ lattitude in closing arguments, and we find that this argument was not improper under our case law governing permissible references to religion in arguing in favor of a death sentence. Conner v. State, 251 Ga. 113(6) (303 S.E.2d 266) (1983). See Carruthers v. State, supra, 272 Ga. at 308-311; King v. State, 273 Ga. at 275.” King v State, 282 Ga. 505, 651 S.E.2d 711 (October 9, 2007). Closing argument making “fleeting” reference to scripture was not improper. District attorney stated in closing: “‘A long time ago, it was said [“]who so shall offend one of these little ones, better for him that a millstone were hanging about his neck.[”] The man that harmed that little one is in this courtroom. And the evidence is absolutely unrefutable. We ask you to fulfill your oath and to hang that millstone around his neck and find him guilty on all counts.’ King urges that this was a ‘reference[ ] to religion which invite[d] jurors to base their verdict on extraneous matters not in evidence....’ Carr v. State, 267 Ga. 547, 556(7)(c), 480 S.E.2d 583 (1997). However, ‘we have long declined to disapprove of passing, oratorical references to religious texts in arguments by counsel, [cits.] [and] have distinguished those fleeting references from more direct references that urge that the teachings of a particular religion command [a certain verdict].’ Carruthers v. State, 272 Ga. 306, 309(2), 528 S.E.2d 217 (2000) (sentencing phase of death penalty case). Here, the reference made by the prosecutor was not only ‘fleeting.’ The source from which he drew the argument was never identified as the Bible or any other religious text. When questioned about her failure to object, defense counsel testified that it was a strategic decision because she did not consider the argument to be outside the parameters of acceptable argument. She was correct in that assessment, since counsel ‘“‘may allude to such principles of divine law relating to transactions of men as may be appropriate to the case.’(Cit.)” [Cit.]’ Hill v. State, 263 Ga. 37, 46(19), 427 S.E.2d 770 (1993) (sentencing phase of death penalty case).” Lewis v. State, 277 Ga. 534, 592 S.E.2d 405 (January 20, 2004). Prosecutor’s biblical references in closing argument, although improper, did not mandate mistrial. “We conclude, … that the prosecutor’s argument in this case, although improper, does not require the reversal of the death sentence. The trial court issued lengthy curative instructions to the jury, informing them that Lewis’s objection had been sustained in part, demanding that the prosecutor’s argument be completely disregarded, and charging them that the law that they would use to decide Lewis’s sentence would come only from the trial court. The trial court asked the jurors to indicate whether any of them did not understand or could not follow her curative instructions, and none responded. By contrast, the trial court in Carruthers [ v. State, 272 Ga. 306, 528 S.E.2d 217 (2000) ] , which had overruled the defendant’s objections to the biblical passages, did not issue any curative instructions. Under the circumstances in this case, we believe the extensive curative instructions were sufficient to cure the harm from the prosecutor’s brief religion-based argument. [Cits.] The trial court did not err by denying Lewis’s motion for a mistrial.” King v. State, 273 Ga. 258, 539 S.E.2d 783 (November 30, 2000). “At the conclusion of King’s sentencing phase closing argument, defense counsel urged the members of the jury to consider a sentence less than death by stating, ‘[A]sk yourself what Jesus would do. The trial court sustained the State’s objection to the argument and instructed the jury to disregard the comment after concluding that it called upon the jury ‘to put themselves in a [position] to be judged by God.’ The trial court’s ruling did not forbid counsel’s arguing in favor of mercy in other ways. This Court finds no reversible error. This Court has held that ‘it would be improper ... to urge that the teachings of a particular religion command the imposition of a death penalty in the case at hand. ’ Hill v. State, 263 Ga. 37, 45(19), 427 S.E.2d 770 (1993). Accordingly, this Court reversed a death sentence where the State argued that biblical law required the death penalty for murder, holding, ‘Language of command and obligation from a source other than Georgia law should not be presented to a jury.’ Carruthers v. State, 272 Ga. 306, 310(2), 528 S.E.2d 217 (2000). The same general standard should apply to