Crenshaw v. the State, 341 Ga. App. 406

Defendant Jeremiah Crenshaw was convicted by a Fulton County jury of rape, aggravated sodomy, first-degree burglary, false imprisonment, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime.
Victim identified her assailant in court by describing his clothing and location in the courtroom and by gesture; she testified she was "100 percent sure."
A separate witness (the victim’s acquaintance) likewise identified Crenshaw in court by clothing and seating position and by pointing.
After each in-court identification, the prosecutor asked the trial judge to "let the record reflect" the witness had identified the defendant; the court responded, "The record will so reflect."
Crenshaw appealed, arguing the judge’s response amounted to an improper comment on the evidence in violation of OCGA § 17-8-57; the appeal was evaluated under the plain-error standard because no contemporaneous objection was made.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court’s "The record will so reflect" statement constituted an improper comment on the evidence under OCGA § 17-8-57	The State: the judge’s statement merely directed the clerk to transcribe the witnesses’ in-court identifications and did not express an opinion on guilt or proof	Crenshaw: the statement amounted to an expression or intimation that a fact had been proved, violating OCGA § 17-8-57	Court held the statement was a permissible notation for the record reflecting observable courtroom identifications and did not comment on the evidence; no error, thus no plain error

Anderson v. State, 249 Ga. 132 (1982) (approving judicial language noting in-court identification on the record as not an improper comment)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for viewing evidence in light most favorable to sustain a criminal conviction)
King v. State, 336 Ga. App. 531 (2016) (reiterating that customary language to note in-court identification does not violate OCGA § 17-8-57)