In enumeration number twelve, the appellant contends that the trial court erred in refusing to declare a mistrial after the state questioned the appellant during cross-examination about the failure of the defense to produce as a witness the person who allegedly paid the appellant to steal the rental car. "[T]he decision of whether to grant a mistrial is within the sound discretion of the trial court and his ruling will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion." Buxton v. State, 253 Ga. 137, 139 (3) ( 317 S.E.2d 538) (1984). Following a conference on the appellant's motion for mistrial, the trial court instructed the jury that the appellant had no burden to prove his innocence, and to disregard the prosecutor's questions.

"[T]he decision of whether to grant a mistrial is within the sound discretion of the trial court and his ruling will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion." Buxton v. State, 253 Ga. 137, 139 (3) ( 317 S.E.2d 538) (1984). Immediately following the nonresponsive answer in this case, the trial court gave curative instructions, telling the jury that "[t]he response of the witness was improper," and that the members of the jury should disabuse their minds of the statement and not consider it.

Jenkins v. State, 237 Ga. 493 ( 228 S.E.2d 877) (1976). See also Buxton v. State, 253 Ga. 137 ( 317 S.E.2d 538) (1984). There was no error.

1. Absent written requests, it was not error to refuse to charge on the lesser included offenses of voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. Buxton v. State, 253 Ga. 137, 140 (5) ( 317 S.E.2d 538) (1984), citing State v. Stonaker, 236 Ga. 1 ( 222 S.E.2d 354) (1976). 2.

It was only after repeated questioning on the same issue that the investigator ultimately offered the challenged explanation, and Earwood cannot now be heard to complain about the answer that he extracted. See Buxton v. State , 253 Ga. 137, 139 (3), 317 S.E.2d 538 (1984) ("Trial counsel may not take chances in propounding questions which may elicit damaging answers and then demand a mistrial on the basis of the answer."); Gorman v. State , 318 Ga. App. 535, 539-540 (3), 734 S.E.2d 263 (2012) (same). Moreover, the trial court gave the jury a prompt and thorough curative instruction to disregard the statement.

Rackoff's lack of knowledge as to the location of the witness is not equivalent to a showing that the witness had "disappeared." See Buxton v. State, 253 Ga. 137, 140 (4) ( 317 SE2d 538) (1984) (no effort was made to secure the presence of two witnesses claimed to be unavailable); Shuler v. State, 263 Ga. App. 124, 127 (4) ( 587 SE2d 269) (2003) (defendant showed he was unable to reach two witnesses but not that they would be unavailable for trial). Accordingly, the trial court's conclusions as to the lack of prejudice are warranted by the evidence.

Id. See also Potts v. State, 261 Ga. 716, 721(6) ( 410 S.E.2d 89) (1991). See Lumpkin v. State, 255 Ga. 363, 364(2) ( 338 S.E.2d 431) (1986); Buxton v. State, 253 Ga. 137, 140(4) ( 317 S.E.2d 538) (1984); Glidewell v. State, 169 Ga. App. 858, 860(2) ( 314 S.E.2d 924) (1984). In this case, the reason for the six month delay can be equally attributed to Carraway and the state.

" See McKnight v. State, 215 Ga. App. 899, 903(1) ( 453 S.E.2d 38) (1994), aff'd, 265 Ga. 701 ( 462 S.E.2d 142) (1995). Buxton v. State, 253 Ga. 137, 139(4) ( 317 S.E.2d 538) (1984), held that Jeff Davis County has only three regular terms of court — March, September, and October, even though the March term begins on the first and second Mondays in March. See OCGA § 15-6-3(7)(D).

The trial court denied the motion because the prosecution was authorized to ask the victim about the visits, a subject introduced by Rashton, to correct any impression that the visits were unrestricted and that the victim had no fear of Rashton. The trial court also found the victim's testimony regarding "guards" did not rise to the level of a mistrial. Whether to grant a mistrial is within the sound discretion of the trial court and the ruling will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. Buxton v. State, 253 Ga. 137, 139 (3) ( 317 S.E.2d 538) (1984). We find no abuse of discretion here.

Felker v. State, 252 Ga. 351 ( 314 S.E.2d 621) (1984). Furthermore, . . . whether to grant a mistrial is within the sound discretion of the trial court and his ruling will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. Ladson v. State, 248 Ga. 470 ( 285 S.E.2d 508) (1981).' Buxton v. State, 253 Ga. 137, 139 ( 317 S.E.2d 538)." Martin v. State, 193 Ga. App. at 584 (2). Under the circumstances, we find no abuse of discretion, and, hence, no error.