☢ test - Í

prosecutor was not offering an improper argument about the impact to the victim, but was instead arguing that based on the facts and reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence, the jury should accept the victim's version of the occurrence and reject Jones's version.” Fisher v. State, 317 Ga.App. 761, 732 S.E.2d 821 (October 3, 2012). Armed robbery and related convictions affirmed; prosecutor’s improper “golden rule” argument was adequately cured by giving curative instruction. Rucker v. State, 291 Ga. 134, 728 S.E.2d 205 (May 29, 2012). Murder and related convictions affirmed; no improper “golden rule” argument. “Rucker complains that after the State ‘[set] the stage by pointing out the imprecision of psychiatry and psychology and by pointing out the number of potentially dangerous people like [him] in society,’ it improperly commented, ‘Are we really so sure of his science of forensic psychology and psychiatry that we bet our lives on it?’ … [T]he comment at issue did not violate the ‘golden rule’ against inviting the jurors to put themselves in the shoes of a victim.” Gomez v. State, 315 Ga.App. 898, 728 S.E.2d 691 (May 17, 2012). Conviction for theft by taking affirmed; no improper “golden rule” argument where prosecutor said, “if we're not going to hold Mr. Gomez accountable in this case, then maybe somebody can stop by my office and tell me how many more months before he can go steal it again.” “‘[T]he prosecutor's comments did not entreat the jury to place themselves in the victim's shoes with regard to the crime committed. Rather, the comments appealed to their desire to create a safe community. And a prosecutor generally may appeal to the jury to convict for the safety of the community.’ (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Emmanuel v. State, 300 Ga.App. 378, 381(4) (685 S.E.2d 361) (2009).” Sanders v. State, 290 Ga. 637, 723 S.E.2d 436 (February 27, 2012). Felony murder and related convictions affirmed; no “golden rule” violation in prosecutor’s argument that “It could have been anybody, but on this night, it was [victim].” Christopher v. State, 314 Ga.App. 809, 726 S.E.2d 411 (February 17, 2012). Physical precedent only. Aggravated assault conviction affirmed. 1. No improper “golden rule” argument: “Can you imagine as Eli is approaching that car and he can't get in the front seat or the front door, and he goes to the back and he sees those guns. What do you do? … He backed up. Several witnesses said he backed up. You would put your hands up.” “[T]he prosecutor's comments did not ask the jurors to render the verdict that they would wish to receive in the injured person's position.” 2. Also not a golden rule argument in explaining discrepancies in witness’s testimony: ““I am going to ask if you will think about this in a personal context, something that has happened to you in your lifetime[.] … I suggest to you that these folks more than a year later after seeing their brother and their cousin shot down, shot in the stomach, shot in the chest, falling to the ground, don't know who was standing where nor do they probably care.” “This was not a golden rule argument because it did not ask the jurors to place themselves in the victim's position at all; rather, it was an attempt to explain the reason for the discrepancies in the testimony of the eyewitnesses to the shooting. Hayes v. State, 236 Ga.App. 617, 619(3) (512 S.E.2d 294) (1999) (counsel's argument asking the jurors to put themselves in the place of a witness was not an impermissible golden rule argument).” Tucker v. State, 313 Ga.App. 537, 722 S.E.2d 139 (January 12, 2012). Drug convictions affirmed; no improper golden rule argument by prosecutor: “you have to ask yourself do you care. I submit to you that you do care because it is your county, and at the end of the day what is going to be left is it is going to be your family members who are going to be strung out on drugs. ” “‘Appeals to convict for the safety of the community have been upheld. Moreover, the State may argue to the jury the necessity for enforcement of the law and may impress on the jury, with considerable latitude in imagery and illustration, its responsibility in this regard.’ (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Bowen v. State, 203 Ga.App. 371, 374(5) (417 S.E.2d 18) (1992). Accord Byers v. State, 276 Ga.App. 295, 297(3) (623 S.E.2d 127) (2005); Shaw v. State, 265 Ga.App. 451, 454(4) (594 S.E.2d 393) (2004).” Ledford v. State, 289 Ga. 70, 709 S.E.2d 239 (March 25, 2011). Murder conviction and death penalty affirmed; no improper “golden rule” argument where prosecutor “urg[ed] the jury to think about the unpleasant way in which the victim had died. This argument was made as part of the prosecutor's argument that Ledford had acted with malice. ‘A “golden rule” argument is one that, regardless of the nomenclature used, asks the jurors to place themselves in a victim's position.’ Braithwaite v. State, 275 Ga. 884, 885(2)(b) (572 S.E.2d 612) (2002). We hold that this argument was not improper.” Futch v. State, 286 Ga. 378, 687 S.E.2d 805 (January 25, 2010). No improper golden rule argument: “The prosecutor