Given the conflicts in the defendant's and Starling's testimony, it is not illogical to draw the deduction that one of them was not telling the truth. See also, Clark v. State, 146 Ga. App. 697 (3) ( 247 S.E.2d 221) (1978). The trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion for mistrial.
(Punctuation omitted.) Clark v. State, 146 Ga. App. 697 (3) ( 247 SE2d 221) (1978). See Steverson v. State, 276 Ga. App. 876, 882 (5) (b) ( 625 SE2d 476) (2005).
The challenged statement was an inference from evidence presented during the trial, and there was no error. Clark v. State, 146 Ga. App. 697(3) ( 247 S.E.2d 221) (1978) (citation and punctuation omitted). 7. Brown contends that the trial court erred by not merging Count 1 (aggravated assault with a deadly weapon upon Victim-1) and Count 2 (aggravated assault with the intent to rape upon Victim-1).
(Citation and punctuation omitted). Clark v. State, 146 Ga. App. 697 698 (3) ( 247 S.E.2d 221) (1978) see also Garcia v. State, 267 Ga. 257 (8) ( 477 S.E.2d 112) (1996). When improper comments are made which are not in evidence, "it is the duty of the court to interpose and prevent the same.
The comments in this case were not impermissible. "`The prosecution is permitted to draw deductions from the evidence and these deductions may be illogical, unreasonable or even absurd so long as there is evidence from which such deductions can be made.' [Cit.]" Clark v. State, 146 Ga. App. 697 (3) ( 247 S.E.2d 221) (1978); see also Garcia v. State, 267 Ga. 257 259 (8) ( 477 S.E.2d 112) (1996). Agent Cannon's testimony, along with the video and audiotapes, provided sufficient evidence of Cheesman's demeanor, actions and conversation with Agent Cannon from which the State could conclude and argue that Cheesman was not inexperienced in such transactions.
It is well established that during closing argument, even remote, illogical or unreasonable inferences and deductions from the evidence provide no basis for objection. See id. Because the comments at issue were permissible, the rebuke and the additional time given the defense for argument were not required. Clark v. State, 146 Ga. App. 697, 698 (3) ( 247 S.E.2d 221) (1978).
(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Clark v. State, 146 Ga. App. 697 (3) ( 247 S.E.2d 221) (1978). The comments about defense counsel, however, involved neither evidence nor deductions or conclusions therefrom.
Appellant's post-arrest statement was properly in evidence and thus was a suitable subject for closing argument. As appellant concedes, a prosecutor may argue deductions which are illogical, absurd or even unreasonable, so long as there is evidence from which such deductions may be drawn. Abner v. State, 139 Ga. App. 600, 602 (3) ( 229 S.E.2d 83) (1976); Clark v. State, 146 Ga. App. 697 (3) ( 247 S.E.2d 221) (1978). "[I]t is permissible for counsel to draw deductions from the evidence regardless of how illogical and unreasonable, and this is a `matter for reply by adverse counsel, not for rebuke by the court.' [Cit.
Accordingly, since there was evidence from which the prosecutor could conclude that the remarks had been made by the victim's relatives, we find no error in the trial court's failure to rebuke the prosecutor or instruct the jury to disregard these remarks. See generally Clark v. State, 146 Ga. App. 697 (3) ( 247 S.E.2d 221) (1978). 8. While the record does not indicate the prosecutor compared appellant to certain notorious criminals, as he contends, the transcript does show that the names of well known criminals were mentioned by the prosecutor in her closing argument to illustrate by example her point that looks may be deceptive, and one may not judge the guilt or innocence of one accused of serious crime by his outward physical appearance.
His mere presence in the Hayneses' house cannot be said to demonstrate possession of the contraband found in his wife's automobile. Mitchell v. State, 150 Ga. App. 44, 46 (2) ( 256 S.E.2d 652). Compare Clark v. State, 146 Ga. App. 697 (1) ( 247 S.E.2d 221). Likewise, the fact that defendants were husband and wife cannot be said to establish defendant husband's connection to the contraband. See Knighton v. State, 248 Ga. 199, 200 (2) ( 282 S.E.2d 102). That men's clothing was found in the trunk of defendant wife's automobile does not establish possession either.