“with every inference and presumption in favor of upholding the verdict, and after judgment, the evidence must be construed to uphold the verdict even where the evidence is in conflict.” Here, as we noted in Division 1, supra, there was ample evidence that Esquibel was merely commuting to work when the fatal accident occurred, and there was no evidence that Barker had directed him to undertake any sort of special mis 764) (1934) (same). 20 Elliott v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 275 Ga. App. 865, 867 (2) (622 SE2d 77) (2005) (punctuation omitted). 21 Id. (punctuation omitted). 22 Id. 23 Kim v. Walls, 275 Ga. 177, 178 (563 SE2d 847) (2002) (punctuation omitted). 24 Id. 25 Elliott, 275 Ga. App. at 868 (2) n.8.; see Reddick v. State, 264 Ga. App. 487, 496 (5) (a) (591 SE2d 392) (2003) (<HOLDING>). 26 See Elliott, 275 Ga. App. at 868 (2)
recognizing investigatory stop must be justified by objective manifestation that person stopped is or is about to be engaged in criminal activity holding that repeated questioning of juror about assent to verdict could be coercive or intimidating holding that a defendant has a right to question the venire about their willingness to accept the defendants right not to testify holding that where a states witness has not gained a concrete benefit for his testimony by way of a deal with the state and the accused is permitted broad scope in exposing the potential for bias in the witnesss testimony the trial court did not err in not allowing the accused to crossexamine the witness about possible recidivist penalties that he faced holding that a juror who expresses a willingness to try to be objective and whose bias arises from feelings about the particular crime as opposed to feelings about the accused may be eligible for service