☢ test - Í

relationship with Page. The prosecutor did not ask any questions about the nature of the witnesses' relationship with Page and she did not ask whether they were afraid of or intimidated by him, or biased or prejudiced for any reason. As Page points out, ‘[t]he state's ... questions were not woven into a larger inquiry regarding the witnesses' relationship with the defendant-they were a non sequitur, neither preceded nor followed by any logically related questions.’ Accordingly, the state's justification for its questioning of the witnesses fails.” Raised in context of ineffective assistance for failure to object, and no prejudice shown. Stallworth v. State, 303 Ga.App. 767, 695 S.E.2d 276 (April 15, 2010). Affirms defendant’s convictions for first degree forgery, based on presenting counterfeit money orders at check cashing business. Trial court properly admitted similar transaction evidence from business’s manager that defendant “had presented counterfeit money orders to him on prior occasions.” “We have held that evidence of prior difficulties between a defendant and a corporation may be admitted under proper circumstances. Askew v. State, 185 Ga.App. 282, 283(4) (363 S.E.2d 844) (1987) (in trial of defendant accused of armed robbery of pizza delivery person, vice-president of operations for pizza company permitted to testify that defendant had been fired from employment with company ‘for the limited purpose of showing malice or bias towards the company’). Further, while the present case does not involve evidence of “a prior assault, a quarrel, or a threat,” nothing in our case law limits prior difficulty evidence to ‘those specific circumstances.’ (Footnote and punctuation omitted.) Westbrooks v. State, 263 Ga.App. 566, 568(2) (588 S.E.2d 335) (2003).” Accord, Latimore v. State , 323 Ga.App. 848, 748 S.E.2d 487 (September 12, 2013) (in prosecution for shoplifting at Home Depot, defendant’s other acts of shoplifting or trespassing at Home Depot stores properly admitted as prior or subsequent difficulties “to prove Latimore’s bent of mind to victimize Home Depot”). Allison v. State, 296 Ga.App. 379, 674 S.E.2d 639 (March 3, 2009). At his trial for aggravated assault, defendant opened the door to evidence of his prior threat against victim by asking victim on cross-examination how she understood his comment on this occasion that he was “about to do something stupid.” “That opened the door to [victim] explaining on redirect examination that she thought he was going to shoot her because he had threatened to do so before.” McCullors v. State, 291 Ga.App. 393, 662 S.E.2d 197 (May 2, 2008). “‘Unlike similar transactions, prior difficulties do not implicate independent acts or occurrences, but are connected acts or occurrences arising from the relationship between the same people involved in the prosecution.... [T]he admissibility of evidence of prior difficulties does not depend upon a showing of similarity to the crime for which the accused is being tried.’ Dixon v. State, 275 Ga. 232, 232- 233(2) (564 S.E.2d 198) (2002) (citation and punctuation omitted).” Accord, Stokes v. State , 289 Ga. 702, 715 S.E.2d 81 (September 12, 2011). Withers v. State, 282 Ga. 656, 653 S.E.2d 40 (November 5, 2007). Defendant was accused of the murder of Coleman at the residence of Flowers. Held, evidence of prior difficulties between defendant and Flowers was properly admitted under the theory of transferred intent. Lowery v. State, 282 Ga. 68, 646 S.E.2d 67 (June 4, 2007). 1. “[Defendant] contends the trial court erred when it admitted the testimony of his cousin recounting [defendant’s] 1999 statement that he would have shot the victim and her male companion had his gun not jammed. ‘[E]vidence of the defendant’s prior acts toward the victim, be it a prior assault, a quarrel, or a threat, is admissible when the defendant is accused of a criminal act against the victim, as the prior acts are evidence of the relationship between the victim and the defendant and may show the defendant’s motive, intent, and bent of mind in committing the act against the victim which results in the charges for which the defendant is being tried.’ Wall v. State, 269 Ga. 506(2) (500 S.E.2d 904) (1998). Threats of violence to the victim made to others are admissible to show motive and intent. Riley v. State, 278 Ga. 677(9) (604 S.E.2d 488) (2004). A witness’s testimony concerning a defendant’s statements to the witness demonstrating ill will to the victim is admissible. Myers v. State, 275 Ga. 709(2) (572 S.E.2d 606) (2002). [fn] The trial court did not err in allowing the testimony.” Accord, Cawthon v. State , 289 Ga. 507, 713 S.E.2d 388 (July 8, 2011). 2. Trial court properly instructed jury that it could consider evidence of prior difficulties as “showing, if it does, the state of feeling between the defendant and the alleged victim and the motive and intent of the defendant or the alleged victim at the time of the incident alleged in the indictment,” although only offered by the State “to establish [defendant’s] bent of mind.” “Because of the variety of possible purposes authorizing the admission of similar transaction evidence, a trial court’s instruction limiting the jury’s use of that evidence must be tailored to the specific purposes for which the evidence was admitted, and an instruction articulating a comprehensive list of possible purposes is not appropriate. [Cits.] Such a limitation is not necessary when the trial court admits evidence of a prior difficulty between the defendant and the victim because such evidence is admitted for very limited purposes – the state of feelings between the two and the defendant’s motive, intent, and bent of mind. Inasmuch as the trial court appropriately