Thompson v. The State

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling defendant's objection to a statement the prosecutor made in her closing argument or in failing to rebuke the prosecutor because the prosecutor's comment was a reasonable inference raised by the evidence.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Rickman, Judge.Aquanus Thompson was tried by a jury and convicted of aggravated battery.^{^[1]} On appeal, Thompson contends that the trial court erred by failing to rebuke the prosecutor and give corrective instructions to the jury after the prosecutor made an allegedly improper statement during her closing argument. For the following reasons, we affirm.

On appeal from a criminal conviction, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to support the jury’s verdict, and the defendant no longer enjoys a presumption of innocence. We do not weigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses, but determine only whether the evidence authorized the jury to find the defendant guilty of the crimes beyond a reasonable doubt in accordance with the standard set forth in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (99 SCt 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979). (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Hall v. State, 335 Ga. App. 895 (783 SE2d 400) (2016).So viewed, the evidence showed that the victim was disabled and required the use of a wheelchair or scooter because she could not walk. Thompson and the victim were dating and the victim characterized their relationship as “rocky.” One evening, after Thompson and the victim had been dating for approximately three months, Thompson drove over to the victim’s residence. When Thompson arrived at the victim’s residence, she was alone and was sitting on her scooter. Thompson asked the victim for some money and when she said “no,” the two ended up getting into an “argument.”

Thompson v. The State

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling defendant's objection to a statement the prosecutor made in her closing argument or in failing to rebuke the prosecutor because the prosecutor's comment was a reasonable inference raised by the evidence.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report