A Camden County jury found Jason Daniel Duffy guilty of two counts of aggravated assault, OCGA § 16-5-21 a, and two counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime, OCGA § 16-11-106. He appeals, contending the trial court erred in denying his motion for new trial because remarks made by the prosecutor during closing argument constituted reversible error. We disagree and affirm. Viewed in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict,1 the record reveals the following facts. During the early morning hours of October 25, 2002, Duffy drove his green Honda alongside a pick-up truck driven by Dawn Landry and occupied by passenger Micah Baker. Duffy fired two shots into the truck. Earlier in the evening, Baker and Duffy had exchanged unfriendly words. Having escaped injury, Landry and Baker reported the shooting to the police, described Duffy and his car, and gave the police Duffy’s tag number. When the police located Duffy at his residence and attempted to arrest him, Duffy fled “yelling cops, cops.” Duffy remained at large for five hours. The police searched Duffy’s residence and car. Although the police did not recover the handgun used in the shooting, they found a holster in Duffy’s car and a box of bullets in Duffy’s residence. The .25 caliber bullets matched a spent shell casing found at the scene of the shooting and were consistent with a slug recovered from victims’ truck. Further, a forensics expert determined that the recovered slug had most likely been fired from a pistol, not a revolver. A pawn shop owner testified that two months before the shooting he sold Duffy a .25 caliber pistol, a holster, and a box of .25 caliber ammunition. He identified the bullets and the holster as the those he sold to Duffy. At trial, Baker and Landry identified Duffy as the shooter.
1. Duffy contends the trial court should have declared a mistrial after the prosecutor made the following remarks during closing argument: And the defendant also had the ability to commit the crimes. Lo and behold, he had a .25 caliber handgun, Raven Arms handgun. The bullets that he had for his gun are the same as the shell casing. It’s the same grain. It’s the same caliber. . . . And then the thing that speaks loudest is what we don’t have. We don’t have Mr. Duffy’s gun, and that speaks louder that anything else in this case. That screams out the defendant’s guilt. Duffy contends this argument constitutes reversible error because it is an impermissible comment on his right to remain silent and an attempt to shift the burden on him to produce the handgun. We disagree.
