☢ test - Í

evidence of appellant's guilt, and the trial court's instruction to the witness and the State to avoid further reference to the matter, we find no abuse of the trial court's discretion. See White v. State, 268 Ga. 28(4), 486 S.E.2d 338 (1997); Guess v. State, 264 Ga. 335(4), 443 S.E.2d 477 (1994).” Maldonado v. State, 240 Ga.App. 497, 523 S.E.2d 917 (October 21, 1999). Narcotics agent’s testimony that the defendant knew him very well did not place defendant’s character in issue. Abney v. State, 240 Ga.App. 280, 523 S.E.2d 362 (October 6, 1999). Defendant’s conviction for burglary affirmed; defendant’s character not placed in evidence by testimony that officers recognized him. “Deputy McCord testified that Abney initially identified himself as David Thomas, but when he brought Abney to police headquarters, ‘about five or ten other deputies said, “Mr. Abney, what are you doing....”’ Abney's attorney sought a mistrial, arguing that the officers' recognition of Abney was prejudicial and brought his character into evidence. The trial court denied the motion on the ground that there was no evidence about how the officers knew Abney. We uphold the trial court's ruling that McCord's testimony that other officers were familiar with Abney did not necessarily suggest prior criminal conduct on the part of Abney and did not require a mistrial. See Barrs v. State, 202 Ga.App. 520(1), 414 S.E.2d 733 (1992); Truitt v. State, 168 Ga.App. 616-617(1), 309 S.E.2d 895 (1983).” 18. OTHER CHARGES/OFFENSES/SENTENCES Smallwood v. State, 334 Ga.App. 224, 779 S.E.2d 1 (October 22, 2015). Convictions for methamphetamine trafficking and related offenses affirmed; no mistrial required based on brief mention of defendant’s prior parole. “[T]he mere mention of a defendant’s criminal history ‘falls short of placing his character at issue.’ (Citation & punctuation omitted.) Mathis v. State, 299 Ga.App. 831, 835(1)(c)(i), 684 S.E.2d 6 (2009) (upholding the denial of motion for mistrial when a witness testified the defendant said he did not want to return to jail).” Geiger v. State, 295 Ga. 648, 763 S.E.2d 453 (September 22, 2014). Murder and related convictions affirmed; evidence of defendant’s prior arrest on another offense was properly admitted to show defendant’s ownership and possession of what would become the murder weapon in this case. “Accordingly, Geiger's counsel's failure to object to this admissible evidence did not amount to ineffective assistance.” Aldridge v. State, 325 Ga.App. 774, 755 S.E.2d 19 (February 19, 2014). Robbery and related convictions affirmed; no error in admitting defendant’s statement to victim that “you do not want to mess with me, I have served time.” Trial court properly found that “the statement was relevant to show ‘the intimidation factor’ of the robbery offense, and that its probative value outweighed its prejudicial effect. … As the statement was relevant to show Aldridge's intent, state of mind, and course of conduct for the subsequent robbery, it was admissible even though it may have incidentally placed his character in issue. See generally Millis v. State, 196 Ga.App. 799, 799(1) (397 S.E.2d 71) (1990). Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the statement.” Woodall v. State, 294 Ga. 624, 754 S.E.2d 335 (January 27, 2014). Felony murder and armed robbery convictions affirmed. No error in admitting evidence of prior burglary of defendant’s parents’ home; though defendant was not charged with or considered a suspect in the burglary, evidence about the burglary could be introduced to explain how defendant may have obtained the pistol which may have killed victim. “[T]he ballistic expert testified that projectiles taken from Mr. Van Allen's body were consistent with being shot from a .25 Lorcin pistol. Another witness testified to seeing appellant with a pearl-handled gun sometime before the murders. Thus, evidence of the burglary was admissible to show appellant had access to a weapon similar to the weapon used to kill Mr. Van Allen. See Fleming v. State, 269 Ga. 245(7), 497 S.E.2d 211 (1998).” Rembert v. State, 324 Ga.App. 146, 749 S.E.2d 744 (October 7, 2013). Armed robbery conviction affirmed; no mistrial required based on witness’s reference to defendant’s prior “parole” (really probation) hearing. “Here, as the trial court pointed out, the crime for which Rembert was on probation was presented to the jury as a similar transaction.” Jackson v. State, 321 Ga.App. 607, 739 S.E.2d 86 (March 1, 2013). Conviction for selling cocaine affirmed; counsel was deficient, but no prejudice shown, in failing to object to comment on video that defendant was “the one who shot Freak Nasty in the stomach,” an incident not related to the charge on trial. No prejudice shown, however, as the comment was brief, unsolicited, not clearly referential of defendant, not highlighted in any way by the prosecution, and not similar to the charge on trial.