¶1concurring specially.
¶2I fully concur with all that is said in the majority opinion. I write separately to draw attention to Groves’s apparent attempt to manipulate the judicial proceedings in this case, as shown by his post-trial arguments that he was denied a fair trial due to the “hostile environment” surrounding the courthouse.
¶3In an apparent attempt to use the circumstances to Groves’s advantage, his counsel appears to have employed a deliberate strategy of ignoring the serious issues raised by the physical and logistical situation occasioned by the barbecue across the street from the courthouse. No attempt was made to ameliorate the possibility of prejudicial impact by seeking any pre-trial intervention by or ruling from the trial court. Only after the jury reached an unfavorable verdict did Groves raise any issue concerning the courthouse environment.
¶4It is axiomatic that “[a] party cannot during the trial ignore what he thinks to be an injustice, take his chance on a favorable verdict, and complain later.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Pye v. State, 269 Ga. 779, 787 (14) (505 SE2d 4) (1998). This rule is designed to address the exact type of conduct engaged in here. At a time when *833redress easily could have been sought, trial counsel chose to ignore the obvious potential for injustice in hope of a favorable verdict. Then, when the desired, result was not obtained, Groves argued that “plain error” had occurred. But as stated in the majority opinion, if error occurred, Groves induced it. The essence of Groves’s position is that because the trial did not result in an acquittal, it was a nullity. This mockery of the trial and appellate process cannot be condoned.