The only case in which the court upheld a conviction in reliance on this aggravating circumstance involved a man who stood up in a church and fired a gun indiscriminately into the audience. See Chenault v. State, 234 Ga. 216, 215 S.E.2d 223 (1975). On the other hand, the court expressly reversed a finding of great risk when the victim was simply kidnaped in a parking lot.

Additionally, the appellant has not demonstrated any harm or prejudice to himself. Chenault v. State, 234 Ga. 216, 220 ( 215 S.E.2d 223) (1975). Enumeration 19 is without merit.

The indictment described the crime with sufficient definiteness to inform the defendants and the jury of the charges against them. Chenault v. State, 234 Ga. 216 (6) ( 215 S.E.2d 223) (1975); Code § 27-701. We find Code § 26-3201 (Ga. L. 1969, pp. 857, 867) to have been validly enacted under a proper title, that in conjunction with another crime it defines a crime, and that the indictment in this case was sufficient to charge these defendants with that crime.

Appellant's contention is without merit. Tamplin v. State, 235 Ga. 20 ( 218 S.E.2d 779) (1975); Chenault v. State, 234 Ga. 216, 223 (7) ( 215 S.E.2d 223) (1975). 8.

As previously discussed in Division 2 of this opinion, the witnesses were told by the prosecution that although they were not required to speak with the defense prior to trial there was nothing wrong with their doing so. Harm as well as error must be established by an appellant in order to secure a reversal of his conviction. Robinson v. State, 229 Ga. 14, 15 ( 189 S.E.2d 53) (1972); Chenault v. State, 234 Ga. 216, 220 ( 215 S.E.2d 223) (1976). The third enumeration of error is without merit.

We must determine whether the video tape recording could have so prejudiced the jury that they were influenced into sentencing the defendant to death. Prevatte v. State, 233 Ga. 929, 931 ( 214 S.E.2d 365) (1975); Chenault v. State, 234 Ga. 216, 224 ( 215 S.E.2d 223) (1975). The defendant was shown on the video tape recording handcuffed at the scene of the crime confessing to the murder and armed robbery.

The newspaper articles on which appellant relied to show prejudice were not inflammatory and appellant presented no evidence of fixed opinions on the part of the traverse jurors as to his guilt or innocence. See Street v. State, 237 Ga. 307 ( 227 S.E.2d 750) (1976); Coleman v. State, 237 Ga. 84 ( 226 S.E.2d 911) (1976); Dobbs v. State, 236 Ga. 427 ( 224 S.E.2d 3) (1976); Chenault v. State, 234 Ga. 216 ( 215 S.E.2d 223) (1975); and Krist v. Caldwell, 230 Ga. 536 ( 198 S.E.2d 161) (1973). The grant or denial of motion for a change of venue in criminal cases lies largely within the discretion of the trial judge.

In my opinion the correct rule is and has always been that the defendant must show harmful error otherwise he is not entitled to a reversal. See in this connection Newell v. State, 237 Ga. 448, 490 (2) ( 228 S.E.2d 873); Chenault v. State, 234 Ga. 216, 220 (2) ( 215 S.E.2d 223); Hall v. State, 202 Ga. 619, 620 (2) ( 44 S.E.2d 234); Davis v. State, 242 Ga. 901, 903 (1) ( 252 S.E.2d 443). Indeed, the burden is always on the defendant (as appellant) to show injury and harm from any alleged error.

The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed both his conviction and sentence. Chenault v. State, 1975, 234 Ga. 216, 215 S.E.2d 223. Chenault then instituted this federal habeas corpus proceeding, in which he presented the same errors he had asserted on his direct appeal.

The evidence was also sufficient to enable the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt as to the murder of Bobby Grimes that Philpot knowingly created a great risk of death to more than one person in a public place which would normally be hazardous to the lives of more than one person. OCGA § 17-10-30 (b) (3); see Chenault v. State, 234 Ga. 216, 225-226 ( 215 S.E.2d 223) (1975). 2.