☢ test - Í

defendant as ‘totally evil’ because a prosecutor's flights of oratory and figurative speech in opening statements are not reversible error).” 2. Testimony “that in past interactions with Carrie, victim’s mother] had seen drug and alcohol use, and that Carrie had pulled a gun on her … did not definitively indicate that Carrie had any prior criminal history and thus did not constitute bad character evidence. Sneed, supra, 267 Ga.App. at 642(2)(c).” 3. “[E]vidence ‘that one has used marijuana or drunk alcohol does not place one's character in issue.’ Hearst v. State , 212 Ga.App. 492, 496(2)(b)(4) (441 S.E.2d 914) (1994).” Steverson v. State, 276 Ga.App. 876, 625 S.E.2d 476 (December 14, 2005). “‘[T]he consumption of alcohol by an adult is irrelevant to the issue of character.’ Davis v. State, 272 Ga. 327, 334(3) n. 26 (528 S.E.2d 800) (2000), citing Mungin v. State, 183 Ga.App. 290, 291(3) (358 S.E.2d 673) (1987).” Accord, Sanford v. State , 284 Ga. 785, 671 S.E.2d 820 (January 12, 2009); Carrie (May 4, 2009), above; Hernandez v. State , 304 Ga.App. 435, 696 S.E.2d 155 (June 15, 2010). Bridges v. State, 279 Ga. 351, 613 S.E.2d 621 (May 23, 2005). “The trial court erred by admitting evidence that [defendant] bribed a corrections officer to bring him nail clippers, a nail file and headache powder while he was in jail awaiting trial. The State contends that this evidence showed [defendant’s] propensity to attempt to influence others to assist him with his defense. The evidence admitted, however, was wholly unrelated to the [defendant’s] defense; to the contrary, it merely concerned [defendant’s] desire for certain amenities while incarcerated. Accordingly, the evidence ‘was not relevant to the issues being tried’ [cit.] and should not have been admitted.” Harmless error, however. Sweet v. State, 278 Ga. 320, 602 S.E.2d 603 (September 13, 2004). “Sweet’s attempts to switch clothing and to frame another for the shooting were relevant as evidence of Sweet’s consciousness of guilt.” King v. State, 269 Ga.App. 373, 604 S.E.2d 230 (August 31, 2004). Admission of letters defendant sent to district attorney, seeking leniency, was not error. Letters were admissible to rebut defendant’s contention at trial that he did not commit the offense. Statement in letter that defendant’s life had changed since incident and he hadn’t committed any offenses since, did not place his character in issue or imply that he had a prior criminal record. Griffin v. State, 266 Ga.App. 50, 596 S.E.2d 405 (March 3, 2004). “Griffin … argues that the trial court erred in allowing the State’s witnesses to testify that the area in which the incident occurred, and he lived, was a high crime area, and denying his motion in limine to prevent the same. Griffin maintains that any testimony that the area known as ‘the Hill’ was a high crime area was irrelevant to the issues in the case, was more prejudicial than probative, and placed his character in issue. A similar argument was made in Lashley v. State [196 Ga.App. 672 (396 S.E.2d 590) (1990)], where the [defendant] contended ‘that the trial court erred in refusing to declare a mistrial in response to the conduct of the prosecuting attorney and several of the state’s witnesses in referring to the arrest scene as a “known drug area.”’ Id. at 673. We rejected this argument, reasoning that ‘[t]he statements did not suggest that the [defendant] had himself been involved in any previous criminal conduct at that or any other location.’ The same reasoning applies here. Testimony that the area in which Griffin lived, and in which the incident occurred, was a high crime area did not suggest that Griffin himself had been involved in any previous criminal conduct at this location. It did, however, explain why [officer] was on patrol in the area, and thus had ‘at least tangential relevance.’ Id. ” Burchette v. State, 260 Ga.App. 739, 580 S.E.2d 609 (March 20, 2003). “The law does not confine the knowledge that a witness has of the defendant entirely to the community of the defendant’s residence, for one familiar with his reputation where he practices his daily vocation may testify to that fact. But this association must be long enough ... as to the witness’ relationship with the defendant in his community to lend the value judgment credence.” Affirmed on other issues, 278 Ga. 1, 596 S.E.2d 162 (May 3, 2004). Davis v. State , 272 Ga. 327, 528 S.E.2d 800 (May 1, 2000). Malice murder and related convictions affirmed as to Davis, reversed as to co-defendant Hill based on Bruton violation. No improper character evidence where officer testified that defendant “was intoxicated and obstreperous” when arrested on unrelated charges. “Because the gun seized from Hill during this arrest was highly relevant to the state's case, limited testimony regarding other circumstances of this arrest was not error, even though it may have incidentally placed Hill's character in issue. Waldrip v. State, 267 Ga. 739, 748, 482 S.E.2d 299 (1997). Further, it has been held that the consumption of alcohol by an adult is irrelevant to the issue of character. Mungin v. State, 183 Ga.App. 290(3), 358 S.E.2d 673 (1987).” Massey v. State, 272 Ga. 50, 525 S.E.2d 694 (January 18, 2000). Malice murder conviction affirmed; no improper