and the defendant, who offered an alibi defense, referred to the victim’s death as a “killing” in his statement to the jury). “ ‘It is not a violation of the statute which prevents a trial judge of the superior court from expressing an opinion as to what facts have been proved, where a fact stated by the trial judge as having been provedis established by uncontradicted testimony.’ ” Sauerwein, 280 Ga. at 440 (quoting Rentz v. Collins, 51 Ga.App. 782, 783 (181 SE 678) (1935)). That is precisely the situation in this case (assuming that the trial court’s challenged remark can even be deemed an opinion as to a fact having been proved). Notably, the issue of venue was disputed in Patel, the case that seems to have started us down the path away from Sauerwein. See Patel, 282 Ga. at 414-415 (<HOLDING>). The traditional interpretation of OCGA §
holding that the ocga  17857 violation occurred when the court interrupted defense counsels opening statement which was apparently trying to raise a venue defense based on an interpretation of where venue is properly laid for charges of online solicitation and obscene contacts holding that the defendant waived its impropervenue defense where its responsive pleading which asserted the defenses of failure to state facts to state a claim and failure to join a necessary party  did not assert the defense of improper venue holding that unpleaded affirmative defense was properly considered by the district court where plaintiff had notice of the defense and an opportunity to respond holding that the erroneous omission of a justification defense was harmless where counsel did not invoke the defense during either voir dire or opening statements and where the defense did not appear to be the primary focus of the defensive theory at trial holding that defense counsels argument that the prosecution was trying to railroad his client was sufficient to invoke the invited response doctrine