☢ test - Í

may, for reasons not appearing in the motion to suppress, be admissible. Id. This is such a case. While evidence seized without a warrant from the unprotected truck long after the accident may have been inadmissible, that improperly seized evidence did not render the deputy's plain view observations at the accident scene inadmissible. See generally Johnson v. State, 179 Ga.App. 21, 22, 345 S.E.2d 123 (1986) (police officers testified about what they saw at accident scene, including beer in defendant's car). We find no error in the court's ruling.” BBBB. MOTIVE See also subheading CHARACTER – OTHER PURPOSES FOR EVIDENCE – MOTIVE, above Burgess v. State, 292 Ga. 821, 742 S.E.2d 464 (April 29, 2013). Felony murder and related convictions affirmed; trial court properly admitted evidence of altercation several hours before fatal shooting. “[T]he incident in the parking lot at the football game explains the groups' original intent on the night in question even if the target of their aggression changed from the 220 gang leader to the victims who were on a street that was one street over from the 220 gang leader's house.” Thompson v. State, 286 Ga. 891, 692 S.E.2d 384 (March 29, 2010). Defendant’s convictions for murder and related offenses affirmed; “[c]ontrary to defendant's assertion, it was not incumbent upon the State to prove defendant's motive in committing any of the crimes. See Darling v. State, 248 Ga. 485, 487(4), 284 S.E.2d 260 (1981).” Edge v. State, 275 Ga. 311, 567 S.E.2d 1 (July 11, 2002). “Evidence of gang membership or involvement is admissible to show motive. Mallory v. State , 271 Ga. 150, 153(6) (517 S.E.2d 780) (1999); Clark v. State , 271 Ga. 6, 9(4) (515 S.E.2d 155) (1999). And here, gang membership was key to Edge’s motive for his involvement in the crimes. The State’s evidence was that Edge participated in the crimes in concert with fellow gang members, in retribution for [the victim]’s gang-related actions.” Accord , Maxwell v. State , 267 Ga.App. 227, 599 S.E.2d 228 (May 4, 2004); Garibay v. State , 275 Ga.App. 170, 620 S.E.2d 424 (August 17, 2005); Yat v. State , 279 Ga. 611, 619 S.E.2d 637 (September 19, 2005); Willoughby v. State , 280 Ga. 176, 626 S.E.2d 112 (January 30, 2006) (members of the “Mafia Mob Family” “could advance in rank by committing crimes” and participated in rituals to elevate members); Johnson v. State , 277 Ga.App. 499, 627 S.E.2d 116 (February 6, 2006) (membership in “Baby Gangsters” “was relevant to show how the defendants knew one another, and to provide a context and motive for the defendants’ joint participation in the robbery;” to explain why one defendant, the ringleader, got all the proceeds; and to explain threats against State’s witness, a former associate.); Wornum v. State , 285 Ga. 168, 674 S.E.2d 876 (March 9, 2009) (notebooks with gang information properly admitted where “[t]he State's theory was that [defendant] committed the crimes in order to improve his status or rank within a gang.”); Harris v. State , 298 Ga.App. 708, 680 S.E.2d 693 (July 2, 2009); Guzman v. State , 287 Ga. 759, 700 S.E.2d 340 (September 20, 2010). Adams v. State, 272 Ga. 115, 527 S.E.2d 200 (February 28, 2000). Malice murder and armed robbery convictions affirmed. Trial court properly admitted evidence of prior dispute between defendant and victim which ended with defendant shot at the police and punched victim. Adams went to prison as a result. “The State demonstrated that Adams blamed [victim] Cleghorn for the prior incident; and that, at the time of the murder, he still begrudged Cleghorn because of it. Thus, the prior incident constituted evidence of motive, and it cannot be said it was irrelevant or remote in time. ‘While motive is not an essential element in the proof of the crime of murder, the State is entitled to present evidence to establish that there was a motive. Spencer v. State, 231 Ga. 705, 708, 203 S.E.2d 856 (1974).’ Johnson v. State, 260 Ga. 457, 458, 396 S.E.2d 888 (1990).” State was also properly allowed to show that defendant bought drugs after murdering victim, again to show motive for the offense. “See Chergi v. State, 234 Ga.App. 548, 507 S.E.2d 795 (1998) (reasonable factfinder can infer connection between armed robbery and purchase of cocaine because association between high cost of drugs and need for funds to purchase them is well recognized); Carruth v. State, 182 Ga.App. 786, 787(2), 357 S.E.2d 122 (1987) (evidence that defendant used part of the money derived from the robbery to purchase and consume drugs was relevant and admissible to show defendant's motive in committing the crime).” CCCC. MOVIES Oree v. State, 280 Ga. 588, 630 S.E.2d 390 (May 17, 2006). In defendant’s murder prosecution, trial court did not err in allowing State to show jury a clip from movie found in defendant’s possession. Movie showed a gang leader ordering the disposal of a body in a way similar to the disposal of the victim’s body here. Witnesses testified that defendant watched the movie several times and compared himself to the gang leader in the movie. “‘[E]vidence of a movie in a criminal defendant’s possession which depicts the conduct with which the defendant is charged may be admissible to show the defendant’s bent of mind ... [and t]he fact that it may place the defendant’s character incidentally into question does not make inadmissible what otherwise is relevant and material to the issues on trial. [Cit.].’ Rushin v. State, 269 Ga.