Thе appellant was convicted of the murder of Larry Hinkle. He received the sentence of lifе imprisonment. He appeals. We affirm.
Evidence introduced by the state showed that on the day of thе murder the deceased was standing on a street corner with Allen Alexander, Weyman McKenzie, and Lester Smith. The appellant approached them in his car, and he told the deceased, "I see you are still here. You are still at it.” The deceased responded, "I’m not selling any *617 marijuana in your territory.” The appellant then said, "I will kill you, Larry,” and he pulled out a gun and shot in the direction of the deceasеd, but the gunshot did not hit him. The deceased began to run, and the appellant shot him again, this time hitting him in the back and killing him.
After the shooting, the appellant met with Alexander, McKenzie, and Smith. He gave each of them $300 to keep quiet.
At trial, the appellant denied giving any money to any witnesses to the shooting. The appellant testified that the deceased and the others had run out in front of his car, and he had shot the deceаsed after the deceased had pulled out a gun and attempted to get into the car. The aрpellant testified that he thought the deceased was attempting to rob him.
1. In three enumerations of еrror, the appellant argues that the trial court erred in overruling his motion for mistrial when the proseсuting attorney stated to the jury in closing argument that the appellant’s testimony was fabricated.
We agree that it is improper for counsel to state to the jury his personal belief as to the veracity оf a witness.
Burnett v. State,
Here, the appellant’s motion for mistrial was overruled; however, the trial judge, in thе presence of the jury, did rebuke the prosecuting attorney for expressing his personal opiniоn that the appellant’s testimony was fabricated. The prosecuting attorney then stated to the jury thаt he did not mean to be stating a personal opinion, but he was submitting that the jury might infer from the evidence that whаt the appellant had said was a fabrication. Since the prosecuting attorney clarified his argument to the jury after being rebuked by the trial judge, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in overruling the motion for mistrial.
Iler v. State,
139 Ga.
*618
App. 743 (3) (
In making his closing argument to the jury, the prosecuting attorney noted that the appellant had testified that thе deceased had attempted to rob him and that he had reported this to a "lady at the counter on the third floor of the detective office.” The prosecuting attorney asked the jury where this lady wаs.
The appellant argues that the trial judge should have declared a mistrial, because this argument wаs improper. We disagree. Although the prosecutor is prohibited from commenting on the defendant’s failure to testify, the prosecutor can argue to the jury the inferences to be drawn from the defendаnt’s failure to produce witnesses, who are competent to testify and who allegedly would give evidence favorable to the defendant.
Contreras v. State,
2. In another enumeration of error, the appellant аrgues that the trial court committed error by failing to comply with Code Ann. § 70-207(b), which requires the court to inform cоunsel of its proposed action upon requests to charge the jury prior to closing argument to the jury.
In this case, the trial court did not refuse to inform counsel of its proposed action on his requests tо charge, as in
Evans v. State,
Any failure on the part of the trial court to more fully inform defense counsеl of the court’s proposed action on his requests to charge was at least partly induced by defense counsel. Induced error cannot be complained of on appeal.
Hill v. State,
3. In two enumerations of error, the appellant argues that the trial judge’s instructions to the jury were erroneous in certain respects. In the remaining enumerations of error, he argues that the trial court erred in refusing to give vаrious of his requests to charge.
We find that the trial judge’s instructions to the jury were correct when viewed as а whole. "Jury instructions must always be viewed as a whole. [Cits.]”
Patterson v. State,
Judgment affirmed.