[Cits.]" Wright v. State, 223 Ga. 849 ( 159 S.E.2d 76) (1968). See Tucker v. State, supra.

It is clear from the record that the trial judge was not expressing an opinion but ruling upon the motion which had been made by the appellant. Wright v. State, 223 Ga. 849 ( 159 S.E.2d 76) (1968). See Tucker v. State, 245 Ga. 68 ( 263 S.E.2d 109) (1980); Whisman v. State, 221 Ga. 460 ( 145 S.E.2d 499) (1965).

No error is shown by this enumeration of error. Wright v. State, 223 Ga. 849 ( 159 S.E.2d 76) (1968); Green v. State, 112 Ga. App. 329 (1) ( 145 S.E.2d 80) (1965) and Bradley v. State, 137 Ga. App. 670 (8) ( 224 S.E.2d 778) (1976). 5. The eighth enumeration of error contends that the trial court erred in charging: "Malice may be implied where no considerable provocation appears and where all the circumstances of the killing show an abandoned or malignant heart.

"(I)t is not error for the prosecutor to reflect upon the failure of the defense to present any evidence to rebut the proof adduced by the state." Brown v. State, 157 Ga. App. 473, 476 ( 278 S.E.2d 31). Furthermore, "[it is] not error for the trial judge to refer to the testimony [or lack thereof] in deciding the objections raised in [the] case" ( Wright v. State, 223 Ga. 849 ( 159 S.E.2d 76)), where the reference is "merely a statement by the judge that there was no evidence of a certain thing" ( Fair v. State, 171 Ga. 112, 120 ( 155 S.E. 329)), and does not comment directly on the defendant's failure to testify. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's motion for mistrial. Brown, supra.

Peters v. State, 72 Ga. App. 157 (2) ( 33 S.E.2d 454). See Hatcher v. State, 8 Ga. App. 673 ( 70 S.E. 43); Moon v. State, 120 Ga. App. 141, 146 ( 169 S.E.2d 632); Wright v. State, 223 Ga. 849 ( 159 S.E.2d 76); Pritchard v. State, 225 Ga. 690 (1, 2) ( 171 S.E.2d 130). Moreover, the defendant neither moved for a mistrial nor offered objection to the alleged improper comment.