Williams v. State, 68920
| Decision Date | 20 November 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 68920,68920 |
| Citation | 324 S.E.2d 544,172 Ga.App. 682 |
| Parties | WILLIAMS v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
J. Reese Franklin, Nashville, for appellant.
Lew S. Barrow, Dist. Atty., David C. Walker, Robert B. Ellis, Jr., Asst. Dist. Attys., for appellee.
Appellant appeals from his conviction of aggravated assault and escape. His only enumeration of error is that the trial court failed to grant his motion for a mistrial based upon remarks made by the prosecuting attorney.
The evidence admitted at trial established that appellant, who was being arrested for a traffic violation, produced a gun and fired two shots at the arresting officer. After disabling the officer's patrol car by shooting one of its tires, appellant escaped in the car which he had been driving. There were two eyewitnesses to the incident, one of whom was the victim. The other eyewitness was appellant's cousin, who was riding with appellant when he was stopped for the traffic violation.
During his closing argument to the jury, the prosecutor mentioned two specific instances wherein law enforcement officials had been killed while attempting to effect arrests. He further stated that "[b]ut for the grace of God," appellant would have been on trial for just such an offense. Appellant sought a mistrial upon the basis of these remarks, but the trial court denied his motion.
We find that the prosecutor's statements, which concerned matters which were not in evidence and which were not relevant to the guilt or innocence of appellant, constituted improper closing argument. Sanford v. State, 153 Ga.App. 541, 542, 265 S.E.2d 868 (1980).
Our examination of the transcript in the instant case reveals that the evidence against appellant was overwhelming, particularly in light of the testimony of the two eyewitnesses. Accordingly, we conclude that it is highly probable that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. the State.
...604 S.E.2d 503 (2004) (citation omitted). 31. Byrum v. State, 282 Ga. 608, 613(10), 652 S.E.2d 557 (2007). 32. See Williams v. State, 172 Ga.App. 682, 324 S.E.2d 544 (1984) (although prosecutor's closing argument remarks—mentioning instances wherein law enforcement officials had been killed......
-
Cole v. State
...was a reasonable inference drawn from the evidence. Although this court found a similar statement to be improper in Williams v. State, 172 Ga.App. 682, 324 S.E.2d 544 (1984), on which Cole relies, we find no basis for reversal here. In Williams, the prosecutor "mentioned two specific instan......
-
State v. Diltz
...where neither victim was a police officer and no officers were present at the time of the charged crimes); Williams v. State, 324 S.E.2d 544, 544, 172 Ga. App. 682 (1984) (prosecutor's reference to "two specific instances" of police officers being killed was improper because it was unrelate......
-
Gardner v. State
... ... Under those circumstances, a finding that appellant did not retain a legitimate expectation of privacy in the automobile was authorized. Williams v. State, 171 Ga.App. 546 (2), 320 S.E.2d 389 (1984). That being so, appellant was not entitled to suppression of the evidence subsequently seized ... ...