☢ test - Í

apologized to the jury for any discomfort caused at the beginning of the trial when the prosecutor pointed the shotgun in the direction of the jury, and stated: ‘But you know what it made me think about? How Patrick [Leonard] and Jarred [Ferrell] must have felt when he had that gun and swung it at them, the sense of fear that they felt with that 12-gauge pump action shotgun pointing directly at them. He's guilty of those counts as well.’” “A ‘golden rule’ argument directly or indirectly tells the jurors that they should put themselves in the injured person's place and render a verdict that they would wish to receive in the injured person's position. Jackson v. State, 282 Ga. 494, 499(5) (651 S.E.2d 702) (2007). The prosecutor's comments did not ask the jurors to render the verdict that they would wish to receive in the injured person's position.” Emmanuel v. State, 300 Ga.App. 378, 685 S.E.2d 361 (October 7, 2009). At defendant’s aggravated assault trial, prosecutor’s arguments did not violate the “golden rule” prohibition: “(b) asking the jurors to imagine the anguish one of the victims felt as ‘that bullet tore through his young body;’ … (d) stating, ‘he threatens the innocent who spares the guilty;’ (e) commenting that the jurors can't use their park because ‘thugs’ have taken it over and use it as a battleground; and (f) referring to the boy's empty place at the family table and telling the jury the boy is now ‘in a cave of loneliness.’” “Here, the 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,’” quoting Hines v. State, 246 Ga.App. 835, 837(3), 541 S.E.2d 410 (2000). “And a prosecutor generally may appeal to the jury to convict for the safety of the community. See Davis v. State, 266 Ga. 801, 804(8), 471 S.E.2d 191 (1996); Philmore v. State, 263 Ga. 67, 69(3), 428 S.E.2d 329 (1993). While the better practice would have been for the prosecutor not to refer to the victims in making his closing argument, we cannot say the trial court erred in allowing the comments.” Burden v. State, 296 Ga.App. 441, 674 S.E.2d 668 (March 5, 2009). Trial court properly sustained State’s objection to defense “golden rule” closing argument, asking jurors “to put yourself in Mr. Burden’s place.” Smith v. State, 294 Ga.App. 692, 670 S.E.2d 191 (November 19, 2008). Prosecutor’s comments about rape victim were not an improper golden rule argument: “‘She's gone through this because she wants to see the right thing done. She didn't go through this [to earn money for sex]. She didn't go through this for that. She didn't go to the hospital and have the doctors stick things up in her. And I know we only have a few females on this jury right here, but that type of exam is not one that you like. ’ (Emphasis supplied.) These comments do not constitute a “golden rule” argument. [Cit.] The record shows that the prosecutor was responding to Smith's defense that R.A. had fabricated allegations. This argument fell within the very wide latitude enjoyed by counsel.” Jackson v. State, 292 Ga.App. 312, 665 S.E.2d 20 (June 26, 2008). At defendant’s murder trial, defense counsel “asked the jury to send Jackson back home to his mother.” Prosecutor responded by simply pointing to victim’s mother. Held, prosecutor’s action was improper, but did not mandate mistrial. “Although we cannot condone the prosecutor’s attempt to divert the jury’s attention from its proper focus on the question of Jackson’s guilt or innocence of the crimes charged, the prosecutor’s response to defense counsel’s plea for sympathy was not so prejudicial under the circumstances as to require declaration of a mistrial.” Carpenter v. State, 285 Ga.App. 296, 645 S.E.2d 709 (May 8, 2007). Closing argument was not an improper golden rule argument: “Carpenter argues that the prosecutor’s argument was improper because it asked the jurors to imagine themselves in the victim’s place and implied that Carpenter posed a threat of danger to others if the jury failed to convict her. We disagree. During his closing argument, the prosecutor said, ‘ You know, at the most in this case, the victim, Chris Rhodes, looked at that defendant [with a] mean [expression], in his own home . I’ll tell you, if that’s all it takes to shoot somebody, all of us married people are going to be a little bit worried. There’s going to be blood in the streets. That’s not what the law of self-defense is about. You don’t go to somebody’s house in the middle of the night and show up and bust in their house and be justified in shooting them . … Contrary to Carpenter’s claim, the prosecutor’s argument did not ask the jury to put themselves in the victim’s place. Neither did the argument imply that the defendant represented a future danger to society. Instead, the argument demonstrated that it would be nonsensical to find that a mean look could justify a shooting. Given that Carpenter’s defense relied on the jury finding that she was justified in shooting Mr. Rhodes, this argument was not improper.” Moore v. State, 280 Ga.App. 894, 635 S.E.2d 253 (August 2, 2006). Improper “golden rule” argument in defendant’s trial for aggravated assault on police officers: “the prosecuting attorney asked the jurors to place themselves in the position of ‘these police officers with children’ and imagine what they experienced at the loud sound of the gun discharging. The prosecutor thereupon demonstrated the sound by clapping his hands.” Harmless error, however.