(Punctuation and footnote omitted.) Wilbanks v. State, 251 Ga. App. 248-250 ( 554 SE2d 248) (2001). Pope was not identified as one of the men who actually participated in the home invasion.
"`[I]t is a sound rule of appellate practice that the burden is always on the appellant in asserting error to show it affirmatively by the record.`" Wilbanks v. State, 251 Ga. App. 248, 268 (19) (b) ( 554 SE2d 248) (2001). See also Supreme Court Rule 19, n. 1 ("page references to the record (R-) and transcript (T-) are essential"). "`[Requirements as to the form of appellate briefs were created, not to provide an obstacle, but to aid parties in presenting their arguments in a manner most likely to be fully and efficiently comprehended by [our appellate courts]. . . . [W]e note that it is not our job to cull the record on behalf of a party.
It is, of course, BB&T's burden as the appellant to support its arguments with citations to the record, and it is not this Court's job to cull the record on BB&T's behalf.SeeWilbanks v. State , 251 Ga. App. 248, 268 (19) (b), 554 S.E.2d 248 (2001) ("It is a sound rule of appellate practice that the burden is always on the appellant in asserting error to show it affirmatively by the record." (punctuation omitted)); Ct. App. R. 25 (a) (1) (providing that appellant's brief "shall contain a succinct and accurate statement of the proceedings below and the material facts relevant to the appeal; a citation of the parts of the record or transcript essential to a consideration of the errors; and a statement of the method by which each enumeration of error was preserved for consideration"); Ct. App. R. 25 (c) (2) (i) ("Each enumerated error shall be supported in the brief by specific reference to the record or transcript.
See id. at 902-903 (2), 757 S.E.2d 102. See Wilbanks v. State , 251 Ga. App. 248, 267 (18), 554 S.E.2d 248 (2001). See Redwine v. State , 280 Ga. 58, 63 (3) (c), 623 S.E.2d 485 (2005) (addressed pursuant to an ineffective assistance of counsel claim).
Bromley v. State, 259 Ga. 377, 380 (4) ( 380 SE2d 694) (1989) (testimony that defendant was asked to take a polygraph examination). See also Williams v. State, 214 Ga. App. 834, 835 ( 449 SE2d 532) (1994) (following Bromley); Wilbanks v. State, 251 Ga. App. 248, 268 (19) (e) ( 554 SE2d 248) (2001) (statement that defendant was on drugs). Furthermore, "[i]n the absence of a demonstration that a mistrial was essential to preservation of a defendant's right to a fair trial, it is not an abuse of discretion to deny a motion for a mistrial even where no curative instructions were given. [Cit.
Generally, jurors should not be permitted to observe a defendant handcuffed in the courthouse. See Wilbanks v. State, 251 Ga. App. 248, 252 (3) ( 554 SE2d 248) (2001). But where a juror "by chance sees a defendant in handcuffs, whether to grant a mistrial is within the trial court's discretion."
Further, at the motion for new trial hearing, Hight did not proffer evidence from any jurors to demonstrate prejudice. Under these circumstances, we discern no abuse of discretion in the trial court's denial of Hight's motion for a mistrial. See id.; Wilbanks v. State, 251 Ga. App. 248, 252 (3) ( 554 SE2d 248) (2001). 3. Hight also contends that the trial court should have granted him a new trial based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.
(Punctuation and footnote omitted.) Wilbanks v. State, 251 Ga. App. 248, 268 (19) (b) ( 554 SE2d 248) (2001). MIKELL, Judge.
Sims v. Heath, 258 Ga. App. 681, 682 (1) ( 577 SE2d 789) (2002).Dept. of Human Resources v. Allison, 276 Ga. 175, 178 ( 575 SE2d 876) (2003) (citations and punctuation omitted); see Wilbanks v. State, 251 Ga. App. 248, 268 (19) (b) ( 554 SE2d 248) (2001). See generally Sealey v. State, 277 Ga. 617, 620 (7) ( 593 SE2d 335) (2004); Carr v. State, 267 Ga. 701, 707 (5) ( 482 SE2d 314) (1997); Parrott v. Fairmont Dev., 256 Ga. App. 253, 256 (1) (c) ( 568 SE2d 148) (2002) (concerning absence of proper argument and corresponding citation to authority or to the record); Jenkins v. State, 240 Ga. App. 102, 103 (1) ( 522 SE2d 678) (1999) (concerning "mere conclusory statements" and "meaningful argument" contemplated by Court of Appeals' rules).
(Punctuation and footnote omitted.) Wilbanks v. State, 251 Ga.App. 248, 255 (5) (a) ( 554 SE2d 248) (2001). But, "[w]hen a witness' name is contained in the indictment, a defendant cannot validly contend that he had been surprised or unable to interview the witness in question through lack of knowledge of such witness."