☢ test - Í

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).” Dockery v. State, 287 Ga. 275, 695 S.E.2d 599 (June 7, 2010). Defendant’s murder and related convictions affirmed; no improper closing argument where prosecutor referred to defendant as a “thug.” “Although appellant complains that the term “thug” is sometimes used as a racial epithet, our careful review of the State's argument reveals nothing to indicate that the prosecutor used this term in any manner other than its common meaning, i.e., a ‘brutal ruffian or assassin.’ Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (11 th ed., 2003), p. 1304.” “See also Jackson v. State, 278 Ga. 235(5)(a) (599 S.E.2d 129) (2004) (counsel not ineffective for failing to object to ‘thug’ reference in State's closing argument).” Santibanez v. State, 301 Ga.App. 121, 686 S.E.2d 884 (November 18, 2009). Prosecutor’s appeal to jurors “that they should be angered by the actions of Santibanez and his associates for bringing into the county a methamphetamine business and all of the negative consequences of such a drug trade” was a proper “appeal to the jury to convict for the safety of the community.” Prosecutor’s remarks regarding “‘people like him’ who the state argued represented ‘a lot of what's wrong with what's going on in this country and in your county’” and characterizing defendant “as a ‘threat to everybody that lives in this county’” were permissible, despite defendant’s claims that they “were made to ‘mine anti- immigrant prejudice.’” 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.” Butler v. State, 298 Ga.App. 129, 679 S.E.2d 361 (May 28, 2009). At defendant’s trial for furnishing alcohol to minors, prosecutor’s closing argument was not improper: “You're all mature residents of Glynn County, you know what the argument is, it's an argument of public safety to protect our young people against themselves, to protect the bar owners from serving limber-legged teenagers, to protect the public that might be out there driving or walking....” Gibson v. State, 283 Ga. 377, 659 S.E.2d 372 (March 31, 2008). “Trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object and move for a mistrial during closing argument when the prosecutor said that the jury had an ‘opportunity to define what is acceptable in [the] community.’ Read in context, the prosecutor appropriately urged the jury to speak on behalf of the community and rid it of robbers and murderers. Davis v. State, 266 Ga. 801, 804(8) (471 S.E.2d 191) (1996); Shaw v. State, 265 Ga.App. 451, 453-454(4) (594 S.E.2d 393) (2004).” Walker v State, 282 Ga. 774, 653 S.E.2d 439 (October 9, 2007). At sentencing phase of defendant’s capital murder trial, argument that jury should “send a message” and sentence defendant to death was not improper. Citing Pace v. State, 271 Ga. 829, 844 (524 S.E.2d 490) (1999). Clark v. State, 285 Ga.App. 182, 645 S.E.2d 671 (April 27, 2007). In defendant’s prosecution for selling cocaine, trial court did not abuse discretion by allowing prosecutor to argue “on the connection between illegal drugs and crime in the community.”