This court only corrects errors that have practically wronged the complaining party. Butts v. State, 198 Ga. App. 368, 370 (4) ( 401 S.E.2d 763). In the case sub judice, Carl H. McKenney testified: "I don't think Mr. Martin had any reason for backing off of that job, no, sir."
Gaither v. State, 234 Ga. 465 ( 216 S.E.2d 324) (1975). To the extent that Butts v. State, 198 Ga. App. 368(2) ( 401 S.E.2d 763) (1991), Payne v. State, 207 Ga. App. 312(3) ( 428 S.E.2d 103) (1993), and any subsequent cases are inconsistent with the controlling authority of Gaither, supra, they are expressly overruled. An objection based on a violation OCGA § 17-8-57 at any other point in the trial is not reached on appeal unless a timely objection and/or motion for mistrial is made. Driggers v. State, 244 Ga. 160(2) ( 259 S.E.2d 133) (1979).
"There is no reason to conclude that any juror was prejudiced by the statement, which was one of personal opinion based on observation of the defendant and was not related to the charges for which he was being tried." Butts v. State, 198 Ga. App. 368, 370 (3) ( 401 S.E.2d 763) (1991), overruled on other grounds, 266 Ga. 417, 418 ( 467 S.E.2d 574) (1996). The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Heng's motion to strike the jury panel.
]" Kilgo v. State, 198 Ga. App. 762, 764 ( 403 S.E.2d 216) (1991). See also Butts v. State, 198 Ga. App. 368 (4) ( 401 S.E.2d 763) (1991). Accordingly, the trial court did not err in denying Ballard's motion for new trial on this basis, and enumerations of error 1 and 3 are without merit.
Furthermore, we note that Harden failed to specifically object to the recharge at trial and has therefore waived the issue for purposes of appeal. Butts v. State, 198 Ga. App. 368, 369 (2) ( 401 S.E.2d 763) (1991). Judgment affirmed.
"While such a reservation is sufficient to attack charges given or refused, it is not adequate to maintain an objection under OCGA § 17-8-57." Butts v. State, 198 Ga. App. 368, 369 ( 401 S.E.2d 763) (1991). "`The question of whether [OCGA § 17-8-57] has been violated is not reached unless an objection or motion for mistrial is made.'
See Daniel v. State, 196 Ga. App. 160 (1) ( 395 S.E.2d 638) (1990). Even if the court had erred, no reversal is required because Karvonen has shown no harm. Butts v. State, 198 Ga. App. 368 (4) ( 401 S.E.2d 763) (1991). Karvonen was allowed to introduce evidence that another man babysat the victim through four other witnesses and his attorney was allowed to comment upon this evidence during closing arguments.
His friends' testimony, as appellant concedes, could not exonerate him. They were not witnesses to the crime and they could testify only as to why he originally came into the neighborhood. Appellant has proved no error; but assuming error, he has shown no harm. See Butts v. State, 198 Ga. App. 368, 370 ( 401 S.E.2d 763). 3. Appellant is therefore not entitled to a new trial.
Even if an error was committed by the trial court, no reversal is required because appellant has not shown harm. Butts v. State, 198 Ga. App. 368 (4) ( 401 S.E.2d 763) (1991). 6.
Assuming, without deciding, there is no evidence to support the above instruction, no harm could have possibly resulted since the jury found defendant guilty of the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter, not murder. See Butts v. State, 198 Ga. App. 368, 370 (4) ( 401 S.E.2d 763). 4. Defendant contends in his last enumeration that the trial court erred in allowing the jury to proceed under the misconception that coindictee Larry Michael Vaughn was a co-conspirator who had been granted testimonial immunity.