☢ test - Í

S.E.2d 74) (1987). …’ Carr v. State, 267 Ga. 547, 555(7)(a) (480 S.E.2d 583) (1997). Here, Holodick has provided no evidence that the case he wished to analogize to in closing argument was either so well-known or so well-established that it would fall within the rule cited above.” Nguyen v. State, 296 Ga.App. 853, 676 S.E.2d 246 (March 4, 2009). Evidence supported prosecutor’s argument that defendant was a sexual “predator.” “In this case, there was evidence properly before the jury that, after encountering 14- year-old L.N. in an Internet chat room, 24-year-old Nguyen traveled the next month from Kansas to Georgia, picked up her and her friends from school on several days, eventually separated her from her friends and moments later committed upon her aggravated child molestation. Closing argument is appropriate, where, as here, ‘it is derived from evidence properly before the jury.’ Spiller v. State, 282 Ga. 351, 354(3) (647 S.E.2d 64) (2007) (footnote omitted).” James v. State, 265 Ga.App. 689, 595 S.E.2d 364 (February 18, 2004). Trial court did not err “in denying his motion for mistrial that was based on the prosecutor’s closing argument that ‘Jesse James lived up to his name.’ ” See also Head (Jauary 27, 2003) , below; and cases analogizing defendants to “the Menendez brothers ( Carr [ v. State, 267 Ga. 547, 555, 480 S.E.2d 583 (1997)]), Jim Jones ( Robinson v. State, 257 Ga. 194, 196 (357 S.E.2d 74) (1987), the Nazis ( Forehand v. State, 235 Ga. 295 (219 S.E.2d 378) (1975)), the Viet Cong ( Martin v. State, 223 Ga. 649, 650-651 (157 S.E.2d 458) (1967)), and well-known murderers such as Charles Manson, David Berkowitz, and Jeffrey Dahmer ( Hudson v. State, 273 Ga. 124, 127-128 (538 S.E.2d 751) (2000)), were permissible where an evidentiary basis for the respective comparison was in the record. See Hunt v. State, 180 Ga.App. 103, 106-107 (348 S.E.2d 467) (1986).” Accord, Duffy v. State , 271 Ga.App. 668, 610 S.E.2d 620 (February 16, 2005) (Prosecutor compared defense theory of the crime to O.J. Simpson’s alternative theories of Nicole Brown Simpson’s murder.); Moss v. State , 278 Ga.App. 221, 628 S.E.2d 648 (March 14, 2006) (comparing defendant’s non-lethal shooting of victim to recent killing by random gunfire in same small county); Humphrey v. Lewis , 291 Ga. 202, 728 S.E.2d 603 (June 18, 2012) (comparing domestic killing to O.J. Simpson case); Johnson (July 15, 2014), above (arguing that defendant’s rape charge was fabricated, comparing to “when the Duke lacrosse players were all charged with rape.”). Cole v. State, 261 Ga.App. 809, 584 S.E.2d 37 (June 19, 2003). Prosecutor’s statement “How only by the grace of God we’re not here on a murder prosecution,” during closing argument was “reasonable inference drawn from the evidence,” where defendant fired two shots at victim at close range. Distinguishes Williams v. State , 172 Ga.App. 682, 324 S.E.2d 544 (1984), where prosecutor was comparing case to two completely unrelated incidents. Williams v. State, 261 Ga.App. 511, 583 S.E.2d 172 (June 5, 2003). Defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel where counsel failed to object to prosecutor’s closing argument which included as a major theme references to defendant’s future dangerousness and references to the Columbine shootings and bombings of public buildings. (Defendant was on trial for criminal trespass and obstruction.) Head v. State, 276 Ga. 131, 575 S.E.2d 883 (January 27, 2003). Trial court erred in disallowing defense counsel’s closing argument comparing defendant’s case to that of Richard Jewell, arguing that both men were wrongly and publicly accused. “Counsel enjoys ‘very wide’ [cit.] latitude in closing arguments, and may make use of well-known historical facts and illustrations, so long as he does not make extrinsic or prejudicial statements that have no basis in the evidence. [cit.] ... Counsel’s illustrations during closing argument ‘“may be as various as are the resources of his genius; his argumentation as full and profound as his learning can make it; and he may, if he will, give play to his wit, or wing to his imagination.”’ [cit.]” Error, however, was harmless. Accord, Relaford v. State , 306 Ga.App. 549, 702 S.E.2d 776 (October 22, 2010); Rainly v. State , 307 Ga.App. 467, 705 S.E.2d 246 (November 30, 2010). Pace v. State, 271 Ga. 829, 524 S.E.2d 490 (December 3, 1999). Defendant’s convictions for capital murder, rape, and related offenses affirmed; prosecutor’s sentencing phase closing argument was not objectionable for comparing “Pace to serial killers like Bundy and Dahmer when arguing that the families of these serial killers would have also said nice things about them when they were children. Under these circumstances, this is not an improper argument. See Robinson v. State, 257 Ga. 194(4), 357 S.E.2d 74 (1987). The trial court sustained Pace's objection to the mention of the sentences received by these other killers, and the trial court issued curative instructions which cured any error that could result from that comment. See Mobley v. State, 265 Ga. 292(19), 455 S.E.2d 61 (1995).” 9. CONTENT – CONDUCT OF DEFENDANT/COUNSEL DURING TRIAL Pitts v. State, 323 Ga.App. 770, 747 S.E.2d 699 (August 9, 2013). Armed robbery and related convictions affirmed; prosecutor’s argument wasn’t “disparaging toward [defense] counsel” when it referred to defense arguments as a “red