This case involves an alleged violation of OCGA § 17-8-57.1 Marquez Gardner was tried on charges arising from the armed robbery of a beauty salon. As the State concluded the direct examination of its first witness, the following exchange took place: Q: He is the person who came in and robbed you A: Yes, sir. STATE: That’s all we have, Judge. A: Either he got a twin. THE COURT: Prove venue. Did you prove venue STATE: I have not as of yet. THE COURT: Why don’t we go ahead and do that before we forget it. Q: The Stylistic Beauty Shop, is that within Muscogee County A: Oh, yes, sir. STATE: All right. THE COURT: Defense Counsel. DEFENSE: Thank you, sir. Gardner was convicted on three counts of armed robbery and sentenced to three concurrent 20-year terms with 12 years to serve. He appealed and the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the exchange quoted above constituted a comment on the evidence by the trial court in violation of OCGA § 17-8-57. Gardner v. State , 296 Ga. App. 792 2 676 SE2d 258 2009. We granted certiorari to consider whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing Gardner’s convictions on this basis, and hold that it did so err. As an initial matter, we assess the analytical framework set forth by the Court of Appeals to evaluate whether Gardner’s failure to object at trial to the exchange in question has waived the issue on appeal. Specifically, it stated that where there is no objection at trial: 1 a claim alleging a violation of OCGA § 17-8-57 is not waived if such violation was plain error; and 2 the violation was plain error if it was obvious or it otherwise seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of the judicial proceeding. Gardner , supra, 296 Ga. App. at 793 2. However, we have clarified that a violation of § 17-8-57 will always constitute “plain error,” meaning that the failure to object at trial will not waive the issue on appeal. Chumley v. State , 282 Ga. 855, 858 2 655 SE2d 813 2008. On appeal, the issue is simply whether there was such a violation. If so, “it is well established that the statutory language is mandatory and that a violation of OCGA § 17-8-57 requires a new trial. Cits.” Patel v. State , 282 Ga. 412, 414 2 651 SE2d 55 2007. To the extent the “plain error rule” has been articulated otherwise in the context of an alleged violation of OCGA § 17-8-57, such cases are hereby disapproved. See, e.g., Lopez v. State , 297 Ga. App. 618, 625 4 677 SE2d 776 2009 where violation of OCGA § 17-8-57 alleged, “absent plain error, an objection or motion for mistrial must be made in order to preserve the issue for appeal”; Sims v. State , 296 Ga. App. 368, 369-370 1 674 SE2d 392 2009 appellate court “must consider whether the trial court’s actions violated OCGA § 17-8-57, and if so, whether that violation constituted plain error”; Birkbeck v. State , 292 Ga. App. 424, 434-435 8 665 SE2d 354 2008 alleged OCGA § 17-8-57 violation reviewed under plain error standard, which requires appellant to show error “which is so clearly erroneous as to result in a likelihood of a grave miscarriage of justice or which seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of a judicial proceeding”.2
The Court of Appeals correctly stated that in order to violate OCGA § 17-8-57, the trial court’s comments must pertain to a disputed issue of fact. Gardner , supra, 296 Ga. App. at 793 2; see Berry v. State , 267 Ga. 476 4 f 480 SE2d 32 1997. Assuming, arguendo, that the issue of venue was disputed in this case,3 we hold that the trial court did not violate OCGA § 17-8-57. Although we strongly discourage the giving of direction or the use of language that could create the appearance of alignment between the trial court and either the prosecution or defense, the trial court did not “express or intimate its opinion as to what has or has not been proved,” OCGA § 17-8-57, because its directive to “prove venue” was immediately followed by a question as to whether venue had been proven. Compare Patel , supra, 282 Ga. at 413 2 reversal required where trial court stated that “venue is proper in this county or we wouldn’t be here right now”. As there was no violation of OCGA § 17-8-57, the Court of Appeals erred by reversing Gardner’s convictions. Accordingly, we reverse.
