Opinion
A90A1494.
DECIDED SEPTEMBER 14, 1990.
Drug violation. Burke Superior Court. Before Judge Pierce.
Jerry M. Daniel, for appellant.
Michael C. Eubanks, District Attorney, Barbara A. Smith, Richard E. Thomas, Assistant District Attorneys, for appellee.
Defendant appeals his conviction of trafficking in cocaine, OCGA § 16-13-31 (a) (1) (B).
1. Defendant, who is black, asserts error in the denial of his motion under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 ( 106 SC 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69) (1986). He contends that the State never satisfactorily explained its peremptory strikes of prospective black jurors. That question is not reached. Eight of the twelve jurors who tried defendant were black. Defendant failed to carry his burden of establishing a prima facie showing of discrimination. Thus the State's explanation is inconsequential. Williams v. State, 257 Ga. 788 (2) ( 364 S.E.2d 569) (1988); Sweet v. State, 191 Ga. App. 516, 517 (2) ( 382 S.E.2d 376) (1989) [physical precedent]; Harris v. State, 186 Ga. App. 756, 757 (2) ( 368 S.E.2d 527) (1988).
2. Defendant's other enumeration of error is that the trial court failed to give his written request to charge the legal doctrine of "equal access." At trial defendant objected to the omission of his instruction request on equal opportunity. We assume the objection and the enumeration refer to the same subject. Where they do not, nothing is presented for review. Brinson v. State, 191 Ga. App. 151, 152 (2) ( 381 S.E.2d 292) (1989). Even so, we cannot consider the merits. No written request to charge is included in the record brought to this court.
"[A] requested charge must be legal, apt, and precisely adjusted to some principle involved in the case and be authorized by the evidence." Mahomet v. State, 151 Ga. App. 462, 466 (3) ( 260 S.E.2d 363) (1979). Estep v. State, 181 Ga. App. 842, 844 (2c) ( 353 S.E.2d 913) (1987). Defendant has failed to meet the threshold requirement that his requested charge was a correct and complete statement of the law. McRae v. State, 145 Ga. App. 122 ( 243 S.E.2d 110) (1978).
Judgment affirmed. Deen, P. J., and Pope, J., concur.