O'NEAL v. State, 288 Ga. 219

O'Neal was convicted at trial of armed robbery, aggravated assault, and obstruction of a law enforcement officer.
During closing, the prosecutor argued that the State would show more evidence in trials in DeKalb County, which was not in evidence.
O'Neal objected; the objection was sustained but no curative instruction was given; the court simply said, 'just proceed on.'
The Court of Appeals held that O'Neal waived review by not obtaining a ruling on his curative-instruction request.
The Georgia Supreme Court held OCGA § 17-8-75 requires the trial court to rebuke, give a curative instruction, or declare a mistrial when improper argument is made, and that merely objecting preserves appellate review, but the error was harmless and the conviction stands.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether OCGA § 17-8-75 requires curative instruction after a proper objection, without a request.	O'Neal argues statute requires curative action.	State contends no extra remedy is required absent a specific defense request.	Yes, curative action required.
Whether a defendant's failure to obtain a ruling on a curative-instruction request waives review.	O'Neal contends waiver due to lack of ruling.	State asserts waiver governs.	Waiver not required; review preserved.
Whether the trial court's 'just proceed on' statement denied the curative-instruction request.	O'Neal argues it denied the remedy.	State maintains no denial.	Trial court erred by not rebuking/instructing.
Whether the error was harmless under the circumstances.	N/A (State bears burden for harmless error)	Error could have contributed to verdict.	Harmless; overwhelming evidence and jury was instructed closing was not evidence.
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly addressed waiver and ultimately affirmed the conviction.	O'Neal challenges waiver ruling; dissent argues against modern interpretation.	State contends proper review was preserved and harmless error supports affirmance.	Court affirmed conviction; Court of Appeals' waiver ruling reversed in part.

Slakman v. Continental Cas. Co., 277 Ga. 189 (2003) (statutory construction and remedial duties of court under OCGA 17-8-75)
Van Dyck v. Van Dyck, 262 Ga. 720 (1993) (plain language governs legislative intent; avoid surplusage)
Arrington v. State, 286 Ga. 335 (2009) (objection to improper argument; duty to rebuke and instruct or declare mistrial)
Bolden v. State, 272 Ga. 1 (2000) (review of trial court's handling of improper argument after objection)
Stinski v. State, 286 Ga. 839 (2010) (reversal for failure to rebuke and instruct after objection)
Zackery v. State, 286 Ga. 399 (2010) (OCGA 17-8-75 requires action when counsel makes timely objection)
Brooks v. State, 183 Ga. 466 (1936) (early interpretation of 17-8-75; review upon objection)
Prince v. State, 257 Ga. 84 (1987) (requiring defense to request remedies to obtain review)