See also Higginbotham v. State, 207 Ga. App. 424, 426 (3) ( 428 S.E.2d 592) (1993) (employment as a pastor); Hillman v. State, 184 Ga. App. 712, 713 (1) ( 362 S.E.2d 417) (1987) (employment at Legal Services). Likewise, a strike based upon a prospective juror's lack of responsiveness during voir dire and sleeping is a race-neutral peremptory challenge. See Thompson v. State, 194 Ga. App. 163 (2) ( 390 S.E.2d 253) (1990) (unresponsive); Evans v. State, 183 Ga. App. 436, 440 (3) ( 359 S.E.2d 174) (1987) (unresponsive); Asbury v. Georgia World Congress Center, 212 Ga. App. 628, 629 (1) ( 442 S.E.2d 822) (1994) (sleeping). Therefore, the trial court did not err in finding that the reasons articulated by the prosecutor were race-neutral. Appellants failed to establish "that the reasons given by the State were merely pretexts for purposeful racial discrimination.
Therefore, the trial court did not err in declining to give the requested jury charge when it was not "precisely adjusted to some principle involved in the case." See Asbury v. Ga. World Congress Center, 212 Ga. App. 628, 631 (4) ( 442 SE2d 822) (1994). (b) Haughton also contends that the trial court erred in failing to give her requested charge that "an unauthorized release of psychiatric records constitutes an invasion of privacy."
(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Asbury v. Georgia c. Ctr., 212 Ga. App. 628, 632(4) ( 442 S.E.2d 822) (1994). Judgment reversed and case remanded with direction.
"`[I]f there is any evidence to sustain the verdict of the jury, an appellate court will not disturb it.' [Cit.]" Asbury v. Georgia World Congress Center, 212 Ga. App. 628, 631 (2) ( 442 S.E.2d 822) (1994). Grindle's argument that the jury verdict was contrary to law similarly fails.
(Citation, punctuation and emphasis omitted.) Asbury v. Ga. World Congress Center, 212 Ga. App. 628, 631 (4) ( 442 S.E.2d 822) (1994). Therefore, there was no error in the trial court's refusal to give this charge.
"`It is not the function of this court to cull the record on behalf of a party in search of instances of error.'" Asbury v. Ga. World Congress Center, 212 Ga. App. 628, 632 ( 442 S.E.2d 822) (1994). 6. The Potter defendants argue that the trial court erred in denying their motion for a new trial in that the jury's verdicts were strongly against the weight of the evidence.
This was a race-neutral reason, and because the City learned in discovery that the property experienced water damage before Pichon purchased it from Patterson, the reason was related to the case. While the trial court's findings are entitled to great deference, see Asbury v. Ga. World Congress Center, 212 Ga. App. 628 (1) ( 442 S.E.2d 822) (1994), we find its ruling erroneous under the circumstances of this case. However, "[a]n appellant must show harm as well as error to prevail on appeal; error to be reversible must be harmful. [Cits.
Because the issue was not preserved for appeal and because neither the alleged error nor any harm have been specified on appeal, this enumeration is without merit. See Loden, supra and Asbury v. Ga. World Congress Center, 212 Ga. App. 628, 632 ( 442 S.E.2d 822) (1994) (instructing that this court's function is not to cull the record on behalf of a party to search for error and that appellant must show harm from the alleged error). 7. Causey contends the trial court erred in allowing into evidence his videotaped confession because the State did not provide him a complete copy as required by former OCGA ยง 17-7-210.
3. Sutton's remaining enumeration of error contending the board and superior court acted in excess of their powers is unsupported by argument, reference to the record, or citation to legal authority; it therefore is deemed abandoned pursuant to Court of Appeals Rule 15 (c) (2). See Asbury v. Ga. World Congress Center, 212 Ga. App. 628 (3) ( 442 S.E.2d 822) (1994). Judgment affirmed. Birdsong, P. J., and Blackburn, J., concur.
Once the party exercising peremptory challenges "`has offered a race-neutral explanation for the peremptory challenges and the trial court has ruled on the ultimate question of intentional discrimination, the preliminary issue of whether the defendant has made a prima facie showing becomes moot.'" Lewis v. State, 262 Ga. 679, 680 (2) ( 424 S.E.2d 626); accord Asbury v. Ga. World Congress Center, 212 Ga. App. 628, 629 (1) ( 442 S.E.2d 822) (since trial court required appellee to explain its strikes, the issue of a prima facie showing of discrimination is moot). Appellant's sixth enumeration as crafted is without merit.