☢ test - Í

Geiger v. State, 258 Ga.App. 57, 573 S.E.2d 85 (September 19, 2002). “A minor reference to a defendant’s incarceration on the instant charge does not place his character in issue.” Accord, Nguyen v. State , 269 Ga.App. 730, 605 S.E.2d 130 (September 24, 2004). McNeil v. State, 257 Ga.App. 147, 570 S.E.2d 433 (August 22, 2002). In defendant’s jury trial for giving a false name to a police officer, it was not error for the trial court to admit into evidence defendant’s correctional facility ID card. The card was found in her purse at arrest and tended to establish that she had given a false name to officers. “[N]either testimony that a photograph is a ‘mug shot’ nor the photograph itself used for identification purposes necessarily places a defendant’s character in issue.” Accord, Clark v. State , 285 Ga.App. 182, 645 S.E.2d 671 (April 27, 2007); Miller v. State , 292 Ga.App. 641, 666 S.E.2d 35 (June 24, 2008); Gillespie v. State , 333 Ga.App. 565, 774 S.E.2d 255 (July 16, 2015) (physical precedent only). Roaderick v. State, 257 Ga.App. 73, 570 S.E.2d 382 (August 19, 2002). Witnesses response to question that he knew Defendant “from the jail” is not grounds for mistrial “‘[i]n light of the immediate curative instruction of the court, the nature of the comment as unresponsive, and the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt otherwise.” Accord, Boxer X v. State , 237 Ga.App. 526, 515 S.E.2d 668 (April 7, 1999) (victim said she had relations with defendant “when he got out of prison”). Tate v. State, 255 Ga.App. 82, 564 S.E.2d 495 (April 16, 2002). “[A] defendant’s character is not improperly placed into evidence by a police officer’s testimony that he took the defendant’s picture ‘from our [police] file,’ by a detective’s testimony that a defendant’s picture used in a photographic lineup was ‘the arrest photo on file,’ or by an officer’s testimony that the defendant’s relatives alerted him to the fact that the defendant ‘had been arrested before for a similar incident.’ Nor is a defendant’s character impugned by an officer’s testimony that he displayed a lineup of ‘jail photographs’ to a witness, where the officer never intimated that the defendant’s picture was in that group.” The officer must not, however, indicate that the defendant’s name was on a list of suspected criminals or that a past arrest or jail record was used. Cf. Anderson v. State , 252 Ga. 103, 312 S.E.2d 113 (1984); Jinks v. State , 229 Ga.App. 18, 19(2), 493 S.E.2d 214 (1997). Accord, Savage v. State , 264 Ga.App. 709, 592 S.E.2d 188 (December 15, 2003) (As part of investigation, officer testified, “we went to the City of Atlanta we obtained a picture of the suspect from the City of Atlanta.”); Sneed v. State , 267 Ga.App. 640, 600 S.E.2d 720 (June 2, 2004) (“[T]he investigating officer’s statements that he ‘ran [a check on] Mr. Sneed’ in order to obtain a line-up photo and that he had conducted investigations at other Blockbusters in an attempt to find out more about the suspect, and (ii) statements from the Blockbuster managers in which they referred to having had trouble with Sneed in the past and that Sneed had been banned from the store,” did not place defendant’s character in issue, and were properly admissible.); Fulton v. State , 278 Ga. 58, 597 S.E.2d 396 (June 7, 2004); Davis v. State , 275 Ga.App. 714, 621 S.E.2d 818 (October 4, 2005) (No error despite defendant’s complaint “that one officer testified to pulling Davis’s photo from police files and that another testified to finding Davis’s fingerprints in police files.”); Heath v. State , 291 Ga.App. 594, 662 S.E.2d 362 (May 20, 2008) (officer said he used prior booking photo for line-up); Thomas v. State , 322 Ga.App. 734, 746 S.E.2d 216 (July 9, 2013) (character not injected when detective explained she got defendant’s photo for lineup from sheriff’s department website). Sanders v. State, 245 Ga.App. 701, 538 S.E.2d 772 (August 28, 2000). Armed robbery and related convictions affirmed; defendant’s character wasn’t put in issue by officer’s testimony that he knew Sanders and co-defendant “‘from coming— they had been down to the police on several occasions in the past.’ Testimony that a defendant is known to the police does not impermissibly place the defendant's character into issue. See Grant v. State, 161 Ga.App. 403–404(2), 288 S.E.2d 118 (1982); see also Williams v. State, 178 Ga.App. 80, 82(2), 342 S.E.2d 18 (1986) (reference to a defendant's ‘mug shot’ does not impermissibly place character in issue).” Taylor v. State, 272 Ga. 559, 532 S.E.2d 395 (July 5, 2000). Felony murder and firearms convictions affirmed; no ineffective assistance based on failure to object to admission of mugshots and testimony touching on defendant’s prior incarceration. “Officer Flournoy testified that he had displayed a photographic lineup, consisting of ‘jail photographs’ to a witness who later identified appellant as the assailant. We have previously held that admitting a defendant's mugshot into evidence is not reversible error since it does not introduce defendant's bad character. Stanley v. State, 250 Ga. 3(1), 295 S.E.2d 315 (1982). At the hearing on the motion for new trial, trial counsel testified that no objection was made to Officer Flournoy's testimony because the officer never intimated that appellant's picture was in the group of photographs and he reasoned that an objection would have drawn unnecessary attention to the testimony. Under the circumstances we hold that trial counsel's performance was sufficient.”