Opinion
54498.
SUBMITTED SEPTEMBER 15, 1977.
DECIDED OCTOBER 11, 1977.
Drug violation. Chatham Superior Court. Before Judge Oliver.
Robert Paul Phillips, III, for appellant.
Andrew J. Ryan, III, District Attorney, Joseph D. Newnan, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.
Defendant was tried and convicted for the sale of narcotics. He enumerates error to this court on the general grounds and on the overruling of his motion for a new trial based upon allegedly prejudicial comments made by the prosecutor in his closing argument.
1. The state made out its case primarily through the testimony of an undercover drug agent working for the Savannah Metro Drug Squad. "In considering a motion on general grounds, this court will not disturb the verdict if there is any evidence to support the jury finding and no error of law appears. Holman v. State, 142 Ga. App. 376. There was ample evidence to authorize the conviction. Tucker v. State, 131 Ga. App. 791 (1) ( 207 S.E.2d 211)." Philmore v. State, 142 Ga. App. 507 (1) ( 236 S.E.2d 180). See also Rutledge v. State, 142 Ga. App. 399, 400 ( 236 S.E.2d 143).
2. Defendant in his brief complains of several different comments by the prosecutor in his closing argument, but only one objection, made in the form of a motion for mistrial, is noted in the transcript. The objection concerns an alleged inference that an acquittal would be tantamount to not supporting the Metro Drug Squad. This, appellant contends, imposes an unreasonable burden upon the jury.
Appeals to convict for the safety of the community have at least by inference been upheld in Hart v. State, 227 Ga. 171 (3) ( 179 S.E.2d 346). "The language complained of introduced no new fact but was merely a forceful and possibly extravagant method adopted by the assistant district attorney of impressing upon the jury the magnitude of the offense and the solemnity of their duty as jurors. Patterson v. State, 124 Ga. 408 (1) ( 52 S.E. 534); Howell v. State, 179 Ga. 401, 411 ( 176 S.E. 29); Miller v. Coleman, 213 Ga. 125, 129 ( 97 S.E.2d 313); Wheeler v. State, 220 Ga. 535, 537 ( 140 S.E.2d 258); Martin v. State, 223 Ga. 649, 650 ( 157 S.E.2d 458); Holley v. State, 225 Ga. 768, 770 ( 171 S.E.2d 528)." Hart v. State, supra, p. 174. See also Berryhill v. State, 235 Ga. 549, 552 ( 221 S.E.2d 185).
"A solicitor general may argue to the jury the necessity for enforcement of the law and may impress on the jury, with considerable latitude in imagery and illustration, its responsibility in this regard." Terhune v. State, 117 Ga. App. 59, 60 ( 159 S.E.2d 291).
"Counsel is permitted, in the sound discretion of the court, to argue all reasonable inferences and deductions which may be drawn from the evidence however illogical they may seem to the opposite party. See, Wheeler v. State, 220 Ga. 535 ( 140 S.E.2d 258), and Hightower v. State, 225 Ga. 681 (3) ( 171 S.E.2d 148). The discretion of the trial court in handling these matters will not be disturbed on appeal except in clear cases of abuse and we find none here." Wisdom v. State, 234 Ga. 650, 655 ( 217 S.E.2d 244). See also Inman v. State, 72 Ga. 269, 278.
Judgment affirmed. Quillian, P. J., and Banke, J., concur.