Court Opinion

ID: 9615275
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:33:30.444819+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:44.130065
License: Public Domain

Fletcher, Presiding Justice,
concurring specially.
I respectfully disagree with the reasoning of Division 9 of the *687majority’s opinion, but do agree that we should affirm the convictions.
Decided November 3, 1997 —
Reconsideration denied November 21, 1997.
Monique D. Moyse, for appellant.
Paul L. Howard, Jr., District Attorney, Bettieanne C. Hart, Assistant District Attorney, Thurbert E. Baker, Attorney General, Paula K. Smith, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Christopher S. Brasher, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
During closing argument, the prosecutor urged the jury to conduct its own demonstration by testing the pull of the trigger. The prosecutor made this argument despite the fact that there had been no expert testimony regarding whether the gun was likely to fire accidentally. In Williams v. State3 this Court held that it was error for the prosecutor to conduct his own demonstration with the murder weapon during closing argument. As we noted in Williams, evidentiary demonstrations should take place during trial, or not at all. Therefore, I believe the prosecutor’s argument, which permitted the jury to create its own evidence during its deliberations, was improper.
However, given the strength of the state’s case against Martin, there is no reasonable probability that the improper argument changed the result of the trial4 and I concur in the affirmance of the convictions.

 254 Ga. 508, 511 (330 SE2d 353) (1985).

 Todd v. State, 261 Ga. 766, 767 (410 SE2d 725) (1991).